ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Trespass

Oliver Heald: What steps Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is taking to ensure that urgent cases to remove trespassers from land are dealt with as quickly as possible.

Shailesh Vara: HMCTS treats such applications with the utmost urgency. Hearing notices are served by hand and hearings before a judge are listed urgently, normally immediately after the two days’ notice period. Warrants are enforced by bailiffs as a matter of priority.

Oliver Heald: I thank my hon. Friend for helping me to resolve an urgent constituency case involving a mass trespass in Letchworth, and for doing so speedily. Is it his Department’s policy, and are the courts aware, that it is vital that these cases are dealt with speedily in order to avoid the risk of nuisance to local residents, as happened in Letchworth?

Shailesh Vara: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It was a pleasure to be able to help out in his constituency matter. He is right: there are existing processes that enable such cases to be dealt with and I am keen that they are dealt with speedily. I will certainly make sure that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is made well aware of that principle.

Maria Miller: I would like to applaud the swift work of Basingstoke and Deane borough council in stopping unauthorised activity this year at Dixon road in my constituency, with the Crown Prosecution Service successfully prosecuting last week those who felled up to 800 trees on that site. Does the Minister agree that tougher fines might also help to deter this sort of criminal activity?

Shailesh Vara: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating her council. We have a lot of measures to deal with trespassers. On increasing fines, we are always on the lookout for ways of improving the law and I will take that on board.

Immigration and Asylum

Andrew Turner: What proportion of immigration and asylum appeals were made on the grounds of alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the last five years.

Shailesh Vara: In 2009-10, 10% of recorded appeals, lodged from inside the UK, raised human rights grounds; in 2010-11 the proportion was 28%; in the last three years the proportion has been 34%. Information is not available for appeals lodged from outside of the UK.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that incorporating the Human Rights Act into British legislation by the Labour party is rightly seen by the public as a disaster? It should be replaced with a Bill of Rights as soon as possible.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend’s comments are timely given that next year we will commemorate the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta. The House will be aware that the Government agreed in the coalition agreement that no major changes would be made to the human rights framework in this Parliament, but as he rightly says, the Conservatives believe that we need major reform to the way in which human rights operate in this country. We believe that we need to curtail the ability of the European Court of Human Rights to tell our courts what to do. We have an excellent record in this area, of which we should be proud, but Conservatives believe that a new British Bill of Rights and responsibilities would remain faithful to those basic principles of human rights while restoring much-needed common sense to their application. This is a debate that we will have over the next few months and I look forward to debating it with the Opposition, when they are prepared to listen, as well as with the Lib Dems and the British public.

Mr Speaker: I think that the Minister’s initial essay, quite a lengthy one, has been completed.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is obvious that Magna Carta in the 13th century was a great step forward and I am glad the Minister recognises that. Will he also recognise that the European convention on human rights and the universal declaration of human rights were massive steps forward, not just for this country but for humankind? Does he not recognise that the narrative of trying to leave the European convention on human rights and the Court diminishes our human rights, the human rights of everyone in this country and the human rights of people across the continent? Will he please rethink this narrative and be slightly more sensible about the universal need for human rights?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman talks about being sensible. He will be aware that it was only very recently that the convention was amended by the Brighton declaration, which was welcomed by all the countries concerned and made sure that nation states had a greater say in their own cases. That has to be good because it means that Strasbourg can deal with the urgent cases that should be dealt with there rather than having a backlog—there is a huge queue—because nation states cannot deal with a lot of the cases that should be dealt with domestically.

Charlie Elphicke: May I tell the Minister that my constituents in Dover and Deal feel that the level of immigration and asylum appeals that are being
	made undermines our border security? They want to see human rights reform to ensure that our borders are safer and more secure.

Shailesh Vara: As I said, that is a debate that we shall have very forcefully with the British people and the other parties in the months ahead.

Margaret Ritchie: In relation to general human rights issues, does the Minister agree with the opinion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that non-compliance with the European convention on human rights calls into question the devolution settlements for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Shailesh Vara: My right hon. and learned Friend is a very distinguished Member, and he can speak for himself, so I do not need to comment.

Whiplash Claims

Karl McCartney: What recent steps he has taken to prevent fraudulent whiplash claims.

Michael Fabricant: What recent steps he has taken to prevent fraudulent whiplash claims; and if he will make a statement.

Shailesh Vara: The Government are taking forward a whiplash reform programme that will deter unnecessary, exaggerated or speculative claims. Reforms to control the costs of claims were implemented on 1 October, and on 2 December we announced further plans to have independence and quality safeguards in the system for obtaining expert evidence.

Karl McCartney: What evidence does the Minister have to demonstrate that his measures have been effective in cracking down on fraudulent whiplash claims, as it would seem that, as a nation, we are happy to allow both the profits of insurance companies and our reputation for having the weakest necks in the world to go unchallenged?

Shailesh Vara: This Government have made and continue to make major changes to deter fraudsters and reduce the number and cost of whiplash claims. We have already seen an impact from these reforms and industry data show that they have contributed to a 14% reduction in premiums since February 2012.

Michael Fabricant: Some years ago, I was shunted up my rear end—by a car on the M1, Mr Speaker—and I was then contacted by a number of companies that all said, “Surely you are suffering from whiplash. You should be making a claim.” Does the Minister agree that such actions are reprehensible?

Shailesh Vara: I very much hope that there are no long-lasting effects from the experience my hon. Friend had. The Government take insurance fraud very seriously and have recently set up a taskforce to tackle this important issue and drive down premiums. The taskforce will consider insurance fraud across the board, and will aim to publish an interim report by March 2015 with a final report issued by the end of 2015.

Mr Speaker: I trust that the experience was even more unpleasant for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) than it was for the car.

Andrew McDonald: Fraudulent whiplash claims are criminal activity, plain and simple, and everybody in the House would condemn them. Will the Minister also condemn those insurance companies that created third-party capture, massively contributing to the number of these claims in the first instance? While he is at it, does he have any evidence to suggest that medical practitioners are failing their obligations under civil procedure rules—CPR—35?

Shailesh Vara: For too long, honest drivers have been bearing the cost and, with that, higher insurance premiums because of the whole issue of whiplash. Government reforms have been robust. We have set up a system whereby we hope to deter unnecessary or speculative claims and ensure that those who are genuinely injured can claim. We have clamped down hard on the insurance companies. We have been working with them, along with the medical profession and the lawyers, to try to make the system a lot better. Medical reports from now on will cost £180 and lawyers will carry out previous claims checks on potential claimants in order to combat fraudulent claims. That will, of course, impact on the insurance companies.

Former Prisons (Disposal)

Richard Graham: What progress he has made on the disposal of former prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Selous: Canterbury prison was sold earlier this year. We have also exchanged contracts on Shrewsbury prison, and we are finalising commercial negotiations on Bullwood Hall, Shepton Mallet, Dorchester, Kingston and Gloucester prisons. When we dispose of surplus property assets, we will always seek best value for the taxpayer.

Richard Graham: It is good to see that progress is inching forward as the former HM prison Gloucester is key to the regeneration of the city centre. Will my hon. Friend confirm, first, that the agreement will include provisions making the buyer subject to the broader aspirations of our master plan for Blackfriars, which will be published in January; and, secondly, that there is clear intent on both sides to finalise everything before the end of the financial year?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is a great champion of Gloucester. Such a clause would be problematic to a bidder, given that master plans can change, but a purchaser seeking to develop the site inappropriately would not obtain planning consent from the local planning authority. We hope to give my hon. Friend and Gloucester an early Christmas present by exchanging contracts before Christmas if possible, with completion proposed for April 2015.

Ian Lavery: Will the Minister tell us how many prisons have been closed since May 2010, how many have been disposed of, and how much cash has been generated in receipts?

Andrew Selous: We have disposed of 14 prisons, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when we disposed of Ashwell, Latchmere House and Canterbury prisons recently, we raised nearly £31 million. In general, we have a “new for old” policy. We are closing down old and inefficient prisons that are expensive to run, and creating new prisons that are better for prisoners and prison officers.

Sadiq Khan: Since May 2010, 18 prisons have closed—some of which, as the Minister accepts, remain unsold, at substantial cost to the taxpayer—and one third of prison officers’ jobs have been cut. That has led to what the chief inspector of prisons has described as a “political and policy failure” resulting in increased overcrowding, violence and suicides. The highly regarded chief inspector was doing his job of telling the truth about the Government’s prison crisis, but he was effectively sacked by the Justice Secretary.
	If we are to rehabilitate offenders effectively, we need prisons that work and chief inspectors who are able to do their jobs properly, without fear or favour. What does the Minister think the chief inspector meant by “political and policy failure”, and will he confirm that non-sycophants can apply for the vacancy created by his departure?

Andrew Selous: I have a very good relationship with the chief inspector, whom I meet regularly.
	Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what a real prison crisis looks like. A real prison crisis happens when 80,000 prisoners are let out early—many of whom, including terrorists, go on to commit further offences—and when it is necessary to spend £75 million on locking up prisoners in police cells.

Freedom of Information Act

Charlotte Leslie: What progress he has made on expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to include private companies providing public services.

Simon Hughes: The coalition Government are committed to increasing the accountability of private companies that deliver public services, including through freedom of information. As the Justice Committee recommended during its post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, the best way in which to achieve that is to include transparency provisions in contracts. I am working to ensure that a revised code of practice and revised guidance are in place by the end of the current Parliament in March.

Charlotte Leslie: Transparency is at the core of the Government’s agenda, especially in the context of health. May I urge them to act more quickly, so that commercial confidentiality can no longer be used as a blanket term to obscure information to which the public should be entitled, and which would be available in the case of an equivalent public provider?

Simon Hughes: I am at one with my hon. Friend. Contracts between the Government, Government agencies or local councils and the private sector for the delivery of services on behalf of the public ought to meet at
	least the same standard of transparency as the Freedom of Information Act applies to contracts with public sector organisations. That is what the guidance and the new rules will say. Companies should do better than that if they can, but the public are certainly entitled to a similar amount of information. It is 10 years since we introduced the Act. We have extended it in this Parliament, and will extend it further before the end of the Parliament.

John Cryer: I agree with what the Minister has said about transparency, but should not the same level of transparency apply to lobbying companies which represent wealthy corporate clients, and which are trying to procure public sector contracts on behalf of those clients?

Simon Hughes: The rules about lobbying do not fall into the same category. They are dealt with by legislation, and the hon. Gentleman has been present for debates on it. We have legislated in relation to lobbying companies; the question relates to contracts for the provision of public services, and the need—about which I hope the hon. Gentleman and I agree—to ensure that the public know exactly what is going on. As a Liberal Democrat, I hope that we can extend the rules to other public companies and to private companies that are effectively public sector monopolies, such as the water companies, which are not currently covered by freedom of information.

Alan Beith: The Government have never dissented from the principle advanced by the Justice Committee that information that would be available under freedom of information in the public sector should remain so when a service is outsourced to the private sector. While I welcome my right hon. Friend’s efforts in this direction, is he looking back at some of the older contracts to see whether that principle has been applied?

Simon Hughes: The answer is yes. My right hon. Friend and his Committee have been very clear as to the right way forward. We agree with them. There has been good practice and bad practice. The intention of the new guidance and the new code of practice is that we should monitor the situation carefully, and where bad practice follows, that should be made public so that we can name and shame those who do not deliver at least the standard that freedom of information legislation requires.

Barry Sheerman: I am a bit confused. We have had one Minister answering questions on behalf of the Conservatives and now another Minister answering on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer this on behalf of the Government: have the Government looked at what the Public Accounts Committee said about the heavy reliance on a very small number of private sector contractors in justice, in health and anywhere they have been privatising our public services? Can we have more scrutiny? Can we have more information about who gets these contracts and how?

Mr Speaker: That question is to be put on this occasion only to the Ministry of Justice. Health issues are very important, but are for another day.

Simon Hughes: On behalf of both parties in the coalition, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes, we want maximum scrutiny of all those who have contracts with the public sector, and of at least as good a standard as legislation imposes on public sector authorities. The question of who gets the contracts—the PAC question—is a different question for different Ministers on a different day, but with the same commitment to openness on behalf of both parties in the coalition.

Helen Jones: But does the Minister, who after all used to be a Liberal, agree that what he is proposing simply does not give the same rights to the public as they would have had with a public body under freedom of information legislation, and that the community rehabilitation companies this Government have set up, with the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money that is being given to them, should be subject to FOI in exactly the same terms as a public corporation, so that we can see not only how they are spending that money, but their links with others in the justice sector?

Simon Hughes: The community rehabilitation companies are part of a programme to do what the hon. Lady’s Government never did, which is to ensure that those who are in prison for a year or less come out and have support in a way that will reduce reoffending. The answer on accountability is, yes, they will be as accountable and transparent—

Helen Jones: indicated dissent.

Simon Hughes: Yes, because those with contracts with the public sector will have an obligation, in contract, to have the same duty at least as the public sector, and if they fail, they will be held to account.

Crime Reduction (Ex-prisoners)

Martin Vickers: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of crimes committed by ex-prisoners.

Bridget Phillipson: What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

Chris Grayling: Despite investment, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. We are fundamentally reforming rehabilitation services by opening up the market to new providers and incentivising them to focus relentlessly on reducing reoffending. For the first time in recent history virtually every offender released from custody will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation and mentoring in the community. We remain on track to deliver these key reforms early in the new year.

Martin Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Notwithstanding the fact that I hope he would agree with my constituents that there are cases where offenders should remain in prison for considerably longer, what assessments has he made of the effect of extending supervision to the group of offenders who leave prison having served less than 12 months?

Chris Grayling: As was said earlier, this is the key part of the reform we are pushing through. There was a group of people who were literally left to walk the streets with £46 in their pockets, and not surprisingly the majority of them reoffended very quickly. From 2015 all of those people will receive a 12-month period of mentoring, support and supervision after prison to try to turn their lives around, and we know from trials in different parts of the country that this can make a real difference to the level of reoffending.

Bridget Phillipson: Probation works best when the service has close relationships with prisons, councils and others, but under the Justice Secretary’s reforms is there not the real risk that police intelligence will not be shared with the new companies? Not only will that put at risk the tackling of reoffending, but it also runs the risk of jeopardising public safety.

Chris Grayling: The reason that that is simply not true is that, under the last Labour Government, we had examples of police control rooms being contracted out to private organisations. If the police are happy to share control room data with private organisations, there is no earthly reason to believe that they will not work together with providers of all backgrounds on the rehabilitation of offenders.

Christopher Chope: One in seven offences are committed by foreigners, and many of those foreigners are ex-convicts from foreign countries. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that only people with good records can come into our country?

Chris Grayling: Of course, this is predominantly a matter for the Home Office, but I can say that we are working closely with the Home Office. I stand second to no one in desiring to see foreign national offenders moved out of this country. I hope very much that the European prisoner transfer agreement, as it comes on stream and is completed by 2016, will make a real difference to ensuring that offenders in prisons in this country are able to be returned to their home country as quickly as possible.

Sarah Champion: Given the amount of upheaval in probation caused by the Government’s reckless privatisation, I echo colleagues in saying that we need a strong, independent chief inspector in order to reduce reoffending by ex-prisoners. How can the current postholder possibly fulfil his duties, given his links to winning bidders? Why did the Justice Secretary appoint him, given that these links were known to him at the time?

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear: I regard the current chief inspector as a man of great integrity and great skill, who has been doing a very good job for the past few months. He was selected on merit by my Department and his appointment was approved by the Justice Committee. The fact that an issue has now arisen with the very recent appointment of a member of his family to a senior position in one of the providers clearly has to be addressed. It will be addressed sensitively and I will report to the House when it is appropriate to do so.

Philip Hollobone: In order to prevent foreign national offenders from committing further crimes in this country, what steps are being taken together with the Home Office to ban them from returning to the United Kingdom once they are repatriated?

Chris Grayling: The deportation process should mean that these people are not entitled to re-enter the UK. Of course, the increased sharing of data between European police forces is one way of ensuring that we know who they are before they try to enter the country and that they do not return. My hon. Friend and I share the same ambition of ensuring that people who have committed terrible crimes in other countries simply cannot come to live here.

Jenny Chapman: The Lord Chancellor is correct in describing the chief inspector of probation as a man of great integrity, because his report yesterday contradicts somewhat the description of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme that the Lord Chancellor has just provided us with, even though the chief inspector’s wife runs half the service now. The chief inspector said that splitting the probation service in two has caused problems with process, communication and information sharing—I am not being funny, but some of us have been saying that for quite some time. Is it not now about time the Lord Chancellor woke up to the reality of his risky, shambolic privatisation?

Chris Grayling: I do wish the hon. Lady would get her facts right. She just said that the chief inspector’s wife is running half the service at the moment, but of course that is not true. The service remains, as of today, entirely within the public sector, and she might get her basic facts right. Had she read that report, she would have seen that the chief inspector identified a number of long-term systemic problems that predate any change we have put in place and were ensuring underperformance. He said that it was necessary to move to a steady state—in other words, to complete the reforms and get things bedded in for the long term—as quickly as possible.

Judicial Review

William Bain: What his policy is on the constitutional role of judicial review.

Chris Grayling: Judicial review plays a crucial constitutional role as an essential component of the rule of law. When used properly, it allows public authorities to be held to account. But it can be misused, with unmeritorious challenges brought simply to cause delay. The Government’s package of reform, in particular the clauses in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, will limit the potential for abuse without undermining judicial review’s vital role.

William Bain: I am grateful for that, but the Secretary of State’s proposals to reform judicial review have been condemned by, among others, the senior judiciary, leading civil liberties organisations and charities, and they have now been forcefully rejected by wide cross-party majorities twice in the other place. Will he now admit defeat, see sense and withdraw these unnecessary proposals?

Chris Grayling: Let me refer the hon. Gentleman to a wise comment about judicial review:
	“Removing the constant use of judicial review, which frankly has become a lawyers' charter, will not remove the basic freedom to apply due process of law.”
	“Oh dear!”, says the new shadow Solicitor-General. That quote came from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Labour Home Secretary. The reality is that we are pushing forward a sensible package of reforms, most of which have been approved in the other place. There are only two items left to be passed through.

Julian Huppert: There is clearly a balance to strike between trivial judicial reviews and defending the rule of law. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Pannick amendment, 102B, helps to strike a good balance between those two? Will he think carefully about whether he can recommend that we agree with the compromise suggested by that amendment?

Chris Grayling: I am giving careful consideration to that matter in the wake of the Lords debate. In the new year, I intend to return to the House with further thoughts on how we take matters forward. As my hon. Friend will understand, I will not set out those plans until I have carefully considered with my colleagues what we are going to do.

Andy Slaughter: How does the Secretary of State intend to respond to what the Daily Mail calls his latest humiliation yesterday at the hands of the Master of the Rolls and the Court of Appeal? Having lost seven judicial reviews, does he now think it is time that he as Lord Chancellor stops acting unlawfully? In January, he will have a third chance to abandon his attempt at muzzling judicial review following two defeats in the other place. But will he tell us now—he does not need to wait until then—whether he intends to protect the rule of law or carry on getting confused by his own legislation and behaving like some tin-pot dictator?

Chris Grayling: May I start by extending my commiserations to the hon. Gentleman? It was widely expected on the Government Benches that he would become the shadow Attorney-General. He did not manage that, and we all express our disappointment about that and extend our commiserations to him. By retaining him on the shadow Front Bench, we will continue to enjoy in these sessions on a monthly basis the usual load of nonsense that he so often comes up with.

Andrew Bridgen: Recent figures show that the number of judicial review applications lodged between 2000 and 2013 increased threefold, and many of them related to immigration and asylum cases. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the judicial review process is used appropriately?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely do. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) talks about the views of the judiciary, but it was one of the immigration judges who said, 18 months ago, that judicial review was being abused for those cases. Opposition Members must understand that they themselves in
	Government said that the system needed to change. We are changing it in a measured and sensible way that will make a difference without compromising its principles. That is the right way to approach this matter.

Private Sector Contracts

Robert Flello: What steps his Department is taking to improve value for money from its private sector contracts.

Chris Grayling: A contract management improvement programme has been running at the Ministry of Justice since early 2014 in order to implement and embed best practices in contract management. As part of that programme, we have established new governance committees, strengthened our assurance of major contracts, clarified roles and responsibilities and improved the skills of our people. We have also renegotiated or retendered a number of our significant contracts to improve value for money from our private sector contractors.

Robert Flello: Does the Secretary of State really think that guaranteeing a decade of profits to private companies as compensation when a probation contract is cancelled represents value for money? It is unprecedented and a scandal. What will he do to reverse that typical Tory rip-off?

Chris Grayling: It is so unprecedented as a typical Tory rip-off that it is a very similar approach to the one taken by the Labour party when it set up the flexible new deal. Sometimes its hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Tony Baldry: For public accounting purposes, many of the charities and new social enterprises that are coming into being to help with managing ex-offenders will be considered to be private contractors. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how he will measure the performance of these charities and social enterprises so that we can demonstrate that it is possible to have payment by results and to get better support for ex-offenders?

Chris Grayling: The mechanism for monitoring the performance of all our providers in the private, voluntary and social sectors is very simple: are they successful in bringing down reoffending? This is not a payment by results programme as ambitious as the Work programme because we have to fulfil the orders of the court over which there is no discretion. But they still represent good value for the taxpayer as they ensure that we pay when we get results. That is the way that Government should operate.

Dan Jarvis: If the Government want to improve value for money, they should start by scrapping the £85 million contract for a secure college, which is a flawed proposal that has twice been rejected by the other place. Given the universal opposition, how close we are to the general election and the fact that the project is facing difficulties obtaining planning permission, will the Secretary of State agree that the contract should not be signed before 7 May so that we can avoid saddling the taxpayer with a huge bill for this untried, untested and unworkable project?

Chris Grayling: I am baffled by the attitude of the Labour party. The secure college will take troubled 16-year-olds out of prisons with iron bars and put them into a modern, supportive environment that is focused on education. My view is that we are much more likely to turn a troubled 16-year-old into an untroubled 16-year-old in a nurturing and supportive environment than we are by leaving them behind iron bars. I am astonished that the Labour party does not understand that.

Claims Management Companies

David Ward: What steps his Department is taking to improve the regulation of claims management companies.

Shailesh Vara: A number of reforms have been made or are being made, including a new set of toughened rules to crack down on abuses, a new power to impose financial penalties on CMCs from later this month and extending the legal ombudsman’s remit to consumer complaints against CMCs from January 2015.

David Ward: Among other things, the bad behaviour of CMCs has contributed to car insurance premiums that are not only unacceptable, but unaffordable, particularly for many young people. Many have argued that the regulatory oversight of CMCs is simply too light. Does the Minister agree that, as the British Insurance Brokers Association has suggested, there is a strong argument that if the regulation were overseen by the Financial Conduct Authority, CMCs would have to abide by the FCA’s 11 principles of business, which would provide a more effective way of bringing down car insurance premiums?

Shailesh Vara: It is important that the hon. Gentleman bears it in mind that since 2007, when regulation began, licences of over 1,200 CMCs have been removed across sectors, and others have left the industry after the commencement of enforcement action. We have introduced tough measures. From later this month the regulator will reinforce its enforcement tools with a new power to impose financial penalties of up to 20% of a CMC’s turnover. Next month, from 28 January, we will extend the legal ombudsman’s jurisdiction to deal with complaints from clients dissatisfied with the service provided to them by authorised CMC’s. The legal ombudsman will provide a new avenue of redress for clients of CMC’s and will assist the claims management regulator in driving up poor standards and practices in the market.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the material can be placed in the Library of the House, where it can be devoured by colleagues at their leisure in the long winter evenings that lie ahead.

Victims of Crime

Graeme Morrice: What his strategy is for supporting victims of crime.

Stephen Mosley: What steps he is taking to increase funding for services to support victims.

Michael Penning: We published “Our Commitment to Victims” in September, which sets out a broad package of reforms, including a victims law that we will bring forward. Money is not everything, but we have increased the budget to £100 million for victims and victim support.

Graeme Morrice: The whole House knows how much the Justice Secretary detests being held to account for his actions by judicial review, but because of this Government’s actions, 40% of women subjected to domestic violence are denied access to justice as a result of changes to legal aid. Does the Minister agree that a sign of a healthy democracy is groups such as Rights of Women challenging the lawfulness of the Government’s actions? Does he also agree that for so many women suffering domestic abuse to go without access to justice is a national disgrace?

Michael Penning: Looking after victims and witnesses is one of the most important things that any Government can do, and I would have thought that there was cross-party agreement on the sort of work we all need to do to ensure that they are looked after. The hon. Gentleman’s question was very detailed, so I will write to him, because that is how we should answer questions when they are that long.

Stephen Mosley: Many victims of crime still find the judicial process confusing and intimidating, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that vulnerable victims of crime find the court process less harrowing?

Michael Penning: It is important that victims and witnesses have the confidence to go to court and give evidence in a way that they feel comfortable doing. We must amend the way that the court process works, and we must use video much more, particularly with young and vulnerable children. That is the sort of thing we are going to do as we go forward, and I would have thought that that had cross-party support.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister agree that before a prisoner is downgraded to being suitable for an open prison, the victim of the crime should be consulted on whether that is appropriate? Can my hon. Friend guarantee that in all cases that will start to happen?

Michael Penning: It is important that victims are informed at each stage of the pathway, from when they report the crime to when the offender is released from prison. They should not have a veto, but they should be consulted.

Compensation Orders

David Hanson: If he will undertake a review of the enforcement of compensation orders agreed by the courts.

Michael Penning: The Government take enforcement of compensation orders very seriously and remain determined to find new ways to ensure that they are paid and that those who do not pay are traced and have to pay.

David Hanson: In the past five years on average only about 42% of compensation orders awarded to victims by the courts have been paid by the perpetrators of those crimes to those victims. Does the Minister think it is right that victims are victims of the crime and then victims because they are not paid compensation by perpetrators? What will he do to improve the situation?

Michael Penning: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman from the outset. He has written to me on several occasions about particular constituency cases which we have, I believe, resolved. The real problem, which is not new for this Government and has been going on for many years, is that the courts impose a fine or compensation or both and the person does not have the money to pay that. It is important, for instance, that the benefits system works with the courts and with the Ministry of Justice. I would be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman as many times as he wishes so that we can try and get this right.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Simon Kirby. Not here.

Women Offenders

Kate Green: What steps he is taking to rehabilitate women offenders.

Simon Hughes: The coalition Government are clear that reducing reoffending through effective rehabilitation of previous offenders is the most effective way to cut crime and reduce the victims of crime. As the hon. Lady knows, female offenders disproportionately have short sentences. The new reforms will for the first time mean that all those leaving will have targeted support on release. We are reconfiguring the women’s estate so that women spend the bulk of their time, if they are in prison, near where they will be released so that they have the best links with the community.

Kate Green: The Minister will be aware that maintaining good relationships with one’s family while in custody is a particularly important factor in rehabilitation, and for women in particular maintaining relationships with their children. But Women Moving Forward, a group of women offenders in Manchester has told me that a tightening of release on temporary licence provisions is making it more difficult for them to have time with their children. Will the Minister take a look at this situation, which is not just important for reducing reoffending among those women, but is in the interests of their children?

Simon Hughes: I am completely persuaded by the argument that women need more time with their children. We are expanding the capacity for that in all prisons. I will be up in Greater Manchester next month meeting colleagues and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady in Manchester with colleagues. We are clear that women in prison need to have maximum time with their children, and that children need to be protected as much as possible from the adverse effects of having their mother away from them.

Meg Munn: In the previous Session of Parliament, the Justice Committee identified that under this Government the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the Corston report on women prisoners had stalled. What has happened in the past year to address that and to make sure that the different needs of women, particularly in preventing reoffending, are being properly addressed by this Government?

Simon Hughes: There is a list of steps that the Government are taking. I cannot give them all now because Mr Speaker would not allow me. We have legislated to make sure that women’s interests are specifically provided for in the rehabilitation process. There have to be specific programmes to meet the needs of women. We have made sure that in each of the women’s prisons there will be the capacity for women to have spaces outside the walls on a gradual programme, so that they can be rehabilitated more quickly. I am clear that the needs of women are entirely different from the needs of men in prison, not least because of their family responsibilities, and that is written through—as through a stick of rock—all that we are seeking to do in relation to women in custody. I will give the hon. Lady the full list later.

Mediation (Family Disputes)

David Rutley: What steps he is taking to encourage the use of mediation in family disputes.

Simon Hughes: The Government are committed to advancing mediation as the best way of reducing the stress on separating couples, alleviating pressures on the court system, and saving money for taxpayers. Last year, seven out of 10 couples who went into mediation had a successful outcome. In the past few months, we have set up a system where the first mediation session is free for both parties if one of the parties is legally aided, and we are already seeing an increased take-up in mediation as a result.

David Rutley: I welcome the progress that is being made in encouraging the use of mediation, but when does the external advisory group of experts on the voice of the child plan to put forward recommendations on improving best practice?

Simon Hughes: In the summer I made a clear commitment to make sure that the voice of children and young people is always heard, not just in the courts but in mediation too. The advisory group is due to make recommendations about best practice in February next year—in two months’ time. I am clearly of the view that the voice of children and young people must be heard in every single case where there is family breakdown so that their needs are taken into account and not just the needs of the parents.

Peter Aldous: Two cases have recently been referred to me where mediation has been used to review court orders for child custody arrangements. In both cases, one of the parties refused to co-operate and did not turn up to the mediation
	sessions. Will the Minister consider imposing penalties for such behaviour so that mediation can play a full role in settling such disputes without recourse to expensive legal proceedings?

Simon Hughes: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the honest answer is no, because mediation requires both parties to agree, and it has to be a voluntary process. When people have a breakdown of a relationship, there is often anger and frustration at the beginning, but if they can get over that, it is far better for them to agree a solution with the other party than to go to court, where they may get something that neither party wants or something that they themselves might not be happy with.

Topical Questions

Kerry McCarthy: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Chris Grayling: May I start by sending, on behalf of the whole House, the condolences of this Parliament to the people of Pakistan after this morning’s terrible terrorist attack?
	I would like to inform the House about the continuing work that we are doing to help victims of rape and sexual violence. I can announce that we have established a fund which, for the very first time, has been created specifically to help male victims of sexual crimes. We have dedicated more than £1 million to provide services to support those male victims, including funding for face-to-face centres as well as creating a national website and online support service. Approximately 75,000 men are victims of sexual assault or attempted assault each year, while 9,000 men are victims of rape or attempted rape, yet fewer than 3,000 offences of male rape or sexual assault were recorded in 2013-14. We want to change this. We hope to encourage male victims to break the silence on a topic still seen as taboo by giving them access to crucial information and emotional support, either in person or online if they find that way more accessible. This Government will continue to put supporting victims of serious and sexual crime at the forefront of their plans.

Kerry McCarthy: I spent this morning at Kids Company helping to wrap some of the 20,000 Christmas presents that it will be giving out to children this year. I was told that 80% of the kids who go to Kids Company are involved in some way in criminal activity, but very few of those who spend time there go on to continue that activity. Will the Minister acknowledge that that sort of intervention is far more successful than putting kids in youth custody centres, and so we should be supporting it?

Chris Grayling: I think we would all pay tribute to the work done by Kids Company. I have been to see its work as well. Like many similar charities around the country, it makes an enormous difference to the support provided for people in the most difficult circumstances. The work that it is doing combines with the work done in our troubled families programme and with the work done in our schools to try to help those who start school behind to catch up before they go on to secondary school. Those are all important parts of the jigsaw
	puzzle of dealing with the real need to use early intervention to keep people out of the criminal justice system where we can possibly do so.

Martin Vickers: A development that has the potential to create 4,000 jobs in my constituency is being further delayed by judicial review, despite its being approved at local, ministerial and parliamentary level. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of judicial review in such circumstances should be curtailed?

Chris Grayling: That is precisely what we are trying to stop. My hon. Friend makes the valid point that those opposed to essential developments in our country are able to use judicial review, on technicalities, to try to prevent them from going ahead or to delay them. It does nobody any favours that that can happen. It uses up huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it wastes the time of essential projects and project teams, and it must change.

Sadiq Khan: I find the Justice Secretary’s answer interesting, because there is a widely-held view that one of the reasons why this Justice Secretary is so hostile to judicial review is that it means the unlawful decisions he makes can be challenged in court. In the past few days, he has been held to have acted unlawfully in relation to his decision to ban the sending of books to prisoners. Does the Justice Secretary accept the decision of the court and, very simply, will he now acknowledge that it was a stupid policy and that he acted unlawfully?

Chris Grayling: Let us be absolutely clear: I took no decision to ban the sending of books to prisoners. I simply unified across the whole of the prison estate the rule that existed under the previous Government, in almost all of our prisons, not to allow parcels to be sent into prisons. Once again, we hear the hypocrisy of the Opposition.

Sadiq Khan: The right hon. Gentleman briefs his Back Benchers and the right-wing media that he is banning books, but when he has been found to have acted unlawfully he says something very different in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
	We know this Justice Secretary is obsessed with repealing the Human Rights Act 1998, walking away from the European Court of Human Rights, making it very difficult to bring a claim for judicial review, and making access to justice almost impossible for people with limited means by ill-thought-through deep cuts to legal aid. When the highly respected, legally qualified and knowledgeable former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), talks about politicians who risk “eroding” Britain’s legal framework for the sake of populism and short-term political gain, who does the Justice Secretary think the former Attorney-General is referring to? Why does he think that a highly respected and knowledgeable colleague has views so different from his own?

Chris Grayling: What I know is that I am pushing forward the policies that the public want. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to them might explain the fact that his party’s ratings have been sliding persistently in the polls over the past two years.

Charlotte Leslie: We know that sport has a vital role in rehabilitating prisoners, and evidence is mounting that limiting the sporting activities to which violent offenders have access can severely limit their rehabilitation possibilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this matter, and will he assure me that we will put practical reality over prejudice in getting outcomes?

Andrew Selous: I fully appreciate the positive impact that being a member of a sports club can have on release. The National Offender Management Service is keen to discuss options for how it can improve links between England Boxing, in which I know my hon. Friend has a particular interest, so that offenders can benefit once they have left custody. If she has new ideas to share on this matter, I will of course be delighted to meet her.

Nick Smith: Will the Secretary of State update the House on how many Members of Parliament have had their telephone calls with prisoners recorded, and have all those MPs been informed?

Chris Grayling: I can confirm that all MPs who have had their calls listened to have indeed been informed. I can also inform the hon. Gentleman that I have now received an interim report from the chief inspector, which is being made available to Members of Parliament through the Library. The chief inspector’s interim findings are that there is no systemic problem and that the situation has improved substantially since 2012, but he recommends a number of other things we can do to improve the situation still further.

Andrew George: What progress are the Government making on the introduction of a women’s justice board? The important question asked earlier by hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) emphasised the need to address such issues.

Simon Hughes: The coalition Government are clearly committed to making sure that we reduce the reoffending and imprisonment of women. As my hon. Friend knows, at the moment I chair an advisory board on female offenders, which is very helpful and successful—indeed, it is meeting this afternoon—in making sure we have a good policy. The introduction of a women’s justice board has been put forward. As it happens, our party, the Liberal Democrats, supports the policy. It is not yet an agreed policy across government, but I am determined that we will do as much as we can with the present structure in the rest of this Parliament, even though we might be able to change it in the next Parliament.

Diana Johnson: Since the Government introduced employment tribunal fees, there has been a drop of 84% in the number of women who have been able to bring discrimination claims. Does the Minister accept that, because of the up-front fees of £1,200, many women are being denied justice under his Government?

Shailesh Vara: The situation is a lot more complex than the hon. Lady makes out. First and foremost, anyone who does not meet the financial criteria has a
	waiver and can go to court. Secondly, there have been a lot of pre-determinations by ACAS. Employment is going up and there are fewer applications. There are a lot of factors and she does herself no credit by simplifying matters.

Rehman Chishti: Following the introduction of my private Member’s Bill, which calls for a tougher stance on repeat driving offences, will the Minister confirm that those matters are being reviewed fully, and will he clarify when the Government will respond to the review?

Michael Penning: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in that area. As a former Transport Minister, I have looked at this issue for many years. I will continue to look at the review and we will come forward with proposals. We are determined that whatever proposals come forward will be fit for purpose. His work will be very helpful.

Stephen Timms: The international child abduction charity, Reunite, reports that the wrongful overseas retention of children is up by 30% so far this year. We need urgent action to implement the welcome recent recommendation from the Law Commission that wrongful retention should be made a criminal offence. Will the Minister say when the Government will respond to that recommendation, and can he give a date by which we can expect to see the legislation that is needed?

Simon Hughes: Kidnap and child abduction can have devastating effects on victims and their families. It is vital that the law reflects the gravity of the offences, and that those who commit them are punished accordingly. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who formed a group in this House to argue for a change in the law. In the past, people could be punished for taking their children out of the country, but not for keeping them illegally out of the country rather than bringing them home. The coalition Government asked the Law Commission to consider the issue. It has reported back and recommended a change to the Child Abduction Act 1984. We are looking at that recommendation actively and I hope that we will be able to make progress in this Parliament.

Karl McCartney: What steps can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department take to ensure that young people do not regard vehicle insurance as an optional extra, as is the case now due to the monopoly and cartel that is operated by the insurance companies?

Michael Penning: While I was a Transport Minister, it was my honour to bring forward the continuous insurance legislation, which made it compulsory for all vehicles that are registered on the road to have insurance. We will continue to look at how we can stamp down on the hard core of people who do not have insurance, because they are a danger not only to themselves, but to others.

Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State agree that sex crimes against children are among the worst crimes on the statute book? Does he also agree that it is time that we had a
	national institute to look at the prevention of crimes of that nature against children and to help perpetrators—a “what works” foundation of the sort that he kindly supported on early intervention and policing?

Chris Grayling: First, the hon. Gentleman has a track record of addressing these issues to compare with anyone in the House. I commend him for the work that he has done. I share his view on sex crimes against children. That is one reason why the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill contains a provision to end automatic early release for those who commit such horrendous crimes. He has expressed an interesting thought today. We cannot have too long a conversation about it across the Dispatch Box, but my colleagues and I would be happy to hear his views.

Philip Davies: The Minister is aware of my request that the former Keighley magistrates court in Bingley be sold off as soon as possible. The failure to do so is wasting taxpayers’ money and preventing an important town centre building in Bingley from being regenerated and brought into use. There seems to have been a lot of faffing about between the Ministry of Justice and West Yorkshire police. I urge the Minister to get on with it and get the building up for sale to allow this regeneration to take place in Bingley and to save the taxpayer some money.

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend is as forthright as ever. He is well aware that I wrote to him last week. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the court is sold and that the proceeds are put into the Exchequer.

Mr Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) regards “faffing around” to be a technical expression.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Ministry of Justice has massively upgraded its prediction for the prison population, which could be up to 100,000 by 2020. Does that suggest a total failure by the Government to take seriously the reduction of reoffending, and was privatising the probation service precisely the wrong policy?

Andrew Selous: The Government are expanding prison capacity, and four house blocks are under construction and will open early next year. We have a new prison in north Wales, and we keep such matters under review. We will always have enough places for those sent to us by the courts, unlike what happened under the previous Government.

Fiona Bruce: Will the Minister join me in commending Timpson shops that provide work for hundreds of former offenders, including many who are still serving their sentences? What can be done to encourage other employers to follow suit?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is right to mention that issue, and I think that around 10% of Timpson’s work force are ex-offenders. Other companies such as Greggs do similarly good work, and I have been particularly impressed by the Halfords training academy at Onley prison. There is good work, and we need more companies to carry on in the same way.

Karl Turner: In his drive to make savings in his Department, does the Secretary of State think it is time to start listening to legal advice that would save his Department an awful lot of money in lost cases in judicial review proceedings?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman talks about saving money, but I have waited in vain to hear how Labour would address the spending challenge. Last week, Labour Members said that they would deliver a spending reduction in this and other Departments year on year, but as of today we have no idea how they would do it.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My right hon. Friend recently visited Purfleet in my constituency where he saw the mile long fly tip that has been left following an unauthorised Traveller encampment. Does he agree it is important that the police and local authorities use the powers at their disposal so that public confidence in our justice system is maintained?

Chris Grayling: The scale of what happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency is shocking and the local police, local authority, and police and crime commissioner must learn the lessons to ensure that such a thing cannot happen again. If powers need to be taken at national level to help in that battle, the Government will certainly consider how we can contribute.

Debbie Abrahams: Two women a week die at the hands of their partner or ex-partner. Let me press the Minister on his earlier remarks. Is it acceptable that 40% of domestic violence victims cannot get access to legal aid?

Chris Grayling: I simply reiterate that we have tried to drive through the necessary change to meet a financial challenge in the most sensitive way possible. The changes that the hon. Lady describes in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 were considered in detail in this House and the other place. Time again I hear from the Opposition Benches that Labour would do things differently, but although Labour Members have said that they will match our spending plans, they have yet to give any sense of what they would do to save money elsewhere.

Philip Hollobone: How many foreign national offenders are in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to return them to secure detention in their own countries?

Andrew Selous: As always, I commend my hon. Friend’s persistence on this issue. There are 10,319 foreign national offenders in custody—down from 11,153 in May 2010—and that figure is the lowest for the end of any quarter since March 2006. That is in marked contrast to the Labour Government under whom the number of foreign national offenders doubled.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Ofsted inspection of Hindley young offenders institution in my constituency rated it as outstanding, particularly in the provision of literacy and numeracy. Why was it slated for closure?

Andrew Selous: We are not closing it; we are re-roling it to put in adult male prisoners. I am sure the hon. Lady welcomes, as I do, the reduction in the number of young people in custody. We must take account of that and will use Hindley young offenders institution for adult male prisoners.

Devolution (Implications for England)

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Command Paper on the implications of devolution for England, which the Government publish today. The House will recall that on 19 September my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, to take forward the commitments to further devolution in Scotland made by all three UK pro-Union parties during the referendum campaign. On 27 November, after the publication of the Smith commission’s report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House that draft legislation to implement its recommendations would be prepared by 25 January, and presented in a Bill to Parliament following the general election. The Prime Minister also said that a new and fair settlement for Scotland must be accompanied by an equivalent settlement for all parts of the United Kingdom.
	This is a fundamental issue of fairness for all the people of the United Kingdom. Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have the opportunity to have a bigger say over theirs. The Wales Bill has completed its final stages in Parliament, and the Secretary of State for Wales is leading a cross-party process to move towards a fair and lasting devolution settlement for Wales. The Northern Ireland Secretary is hosting talks on a number of issues, including reforms to make the devolved institutions work more effectively. Depending on progress, in particular putting the Executive’s finances on a sustainable long-term footing, the Government stand ready to introduce legislation to devolve corporation tax, with a view to seeing it on the statute book during this Parliament.
	Today’s Command Paper covers proposals on decentralisation within England and proposals on English votes on English laws. It sets out the position of each of the coalition parties, just as the Command Paper on Scotland did for three parties. We invited the Labour party to submit its own proposals for publication, but it declined to do so. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been able to work on a cross-party basis. The talks held by the Secretary of State for Wales have been on a cross-party basis. It is only on matters concerning England that the leadership of the Opposition are hostile to cross-party talks. However, the contribution to our thinking by leaders of local authorities, including those from the Labour party, has been welcome and constructive.
	There has been a significant shift in where power resides in the United Kingdom in recent years. Since 2010, the Government have undertaken the most radical programme of decentralisation within England in a generation. In addition to the significant new powers for local communities, there are now five combined authorities, 15 directly elected local authority mayors, a metro mayor in London, and plans for a metro mayor to be elected for Greater Manchester in 2017. The regional growth fund, growth deals and growing places fund have been made available to all local areas. This summer, the Government set out plans to create a northern powerhouse and consulted on Northern Futures.
	Taken together with what we are doing on science and transport infrastructure, this Government have the most ambitious and substantial plan for the north of England of any Government in decades.
	Both parties of the coalition wish to continue this major progress towards decentralisation of power in England, and their ideas are set out in the Command Paper. In the Command Paper, the Liberal Democrats call for a process of devolution on demand to be delivered through an English devolution-enabling Bill, under which areas would be able to demand powers from Westminster and Whitehall from a menu of options. This would include many powers devolved to the Welsh Assembly, although the exact powers available would be subject to cross-government confirmation, and the UK Government would retain a list of reserved powers. In order to claim powers, a given area would need to demonstrate it met tests on geography, population, competence, local democratic mandate, a fair electoral system, and a transparent and accountable governance structure.
	For our part, the Conservative party wishes in the next Parliament to continue with the empowerment of neighbourhoods and parishes in England, as well as seeing the type of arrangements being created for Greater Manchester agreed elsewhere. This includes a large further increase in neighbourhood planning, greater local accountability and use of direct democracy, such as local referendums on local issues. In addition, Conservatives want to work with local enterprise partnerships and councils to promote jobs and growth, to help local authorities join up different public services, and to work with local business to support jobs and improve quality of life locally. We strongly believe that localism must not be a way of imposing new taxation. We believe that the Westminster Parliament is and should remain the English law-making body.
	Decentralisation within England cannot on its own create fairness for England as a whole on policies decided at the UK level but which apply only in England. On the crucial question of the implications for England of devolution in the rest of the UK, fairness for all the people of the UK now requires this issue to be addressed decisively.
	Devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom has created the situation in which MPs representing constituencies outside England may vote on legislation that does not affect their constituents, while English MPs are not able to influence these policies in other nations where they are devolved. Both coalition parties believe that this so-called West Lothian question needs to be addressed and have put forward their proposals in the Command Paper.
	The Liberal Democrat party believes—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about Liberal Democrat policy. We must hear it.

William Hague: At least the Liberal Democrat proposals are set out in the Command Paper, unlike any proposals from the Labour party.
	The Liberal Democrat party believes that English MPs at Westminster should have a stronger voice and a veto over English-only issues. Their preferred method
	of addressing this would be for there to be votes for Westminster elections using the single transferable vote system. However, accepting that there is currently no cross-party consensus on this—which is certainly true—they instead propose that the composition of those serving on any new stage, such as a Grand Committee of English MPs, should reflect the votes of the electorate in England. The Liberal Democrats also believe that measures that unambiguously affect England only and are not devolved below the Westminster level should be subject to a new parliamentary stage before Third Reading or equivalent, composed of MPs proportionately representing the votes cast in England to allow them to scrutinise proposals and to employ a veto if they so wish.
	The Conservative party believes that equalised constituency sizes remains necessary to fairness for all voters. We set out three options in the Command Paper for resolving the West Lothian question. All of them represent a stronger and more binding version of English votes for English laws than the work of the McKay commission, but all rest on the guiding principle set out by McKay, that
	“decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England-and-Wales).”
	The first option, which was put forward by Lord Norton of Louth in 2000, is to reform consideration of Bills at all stages. All stages of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be determined by MPs from England or from England and Wales. The key advantage of this proposal is its simplicity and the absence of any need for any new stages in the legislative process.
	The second option is to reform the amending stages of Bills, as proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in 2008. Under this proposal all amending stages of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be determined by MPs from England and Wales. Committees would be in proportion to party strength in those countries. The key advantage of this proposal is that it allows MPs from England, or from England and Wales, to have the decisive say over the content of legislation while not excluding other MPs from other stages and not introducing any new stages to the legislative process.
	The third and final option is to introduce a reformed Committee stage and legislative consent motion, providing an effective veto. Under this option, the Committee stage of legislation relating only to England, or only to England and Wales, would be considered only by MPs from those parts of the United Kingdom. Report stage would be taken as normal by all MPs. An English Grand Committee would then vote after Report, but prior to Third Reading, on a legislative consent motion. English, or English and Welsh, MPs would therefore be able to grant their consent or veto a Bill, or relevant parts of it. Such decisions would have the same status as those of the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters. The key advantage of this proposal is that it would give English, or English and Welsh, MPs a crucial say over the content of legislation and a secure veto over its passing while not excluding other MPs from its consideration in the full House of Commons.
	The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats invite comment and views on all the options in the Command Paper—[Interruption.] We await the views of the Opposition. For hundreds of years, the constitutional arrangements of the UK have evolved successfully through taking account of the needs in each century and decade for the giving or withholding of consent. The pursuit of devolution in recent years has been based on the importance of establishing the consent of parts of the UK for the policies particular to them. The next stage of our constitutional evolution must involve that principle of consent being applied to all parts of the UK.
	Whichever option is ultimately decided upon must be clear, decisive and effective in producing fairness for the whole United Kingdom. The Government encourage debate so that this matter can be fully considered and resolved for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom. It is an issue that too many people have avoided for too long, and that can no longer be put aside.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. September’s referendum was momentous because of its fantastic turnout and the decisive way in which the Scottish people voted to stay in the United Kingdom, and also because of the way in which it unleashed a devolutionary vigour up and down the country. We are a party with an unequalled record on devolution, and this is a debate that Labour embraces and seeks to lead. We welcome Westminster further releasing its grip on the levers that run this country. I hope that, despite the Prime Minister’s 7 am jitters on the morning after the referendum, Members on both sides of the House will welcome the fact that, through the Smith commission, we are delivering on the vow to the Scottish people.
	This is only the beginning of the change we need to make to the way the country is run. In England, cities and towns are demanding a greater say in the running of their affairs. Labour has responded to those demands and made a commitment to introduce an English devolution Act in our first Queen’s Speech. This will devolve skills, transport and economic development. In Wales, we will take forward the proposals of the Silk commission for further devolution, and place Welsh devolution on the same legal footing as that for Scotland.
	It is also right that we should look at how Parliament works, as more power is shifted away from Westminster. We need a democratically elected senate of the nations and regions to replace the House of Lords. And, yes, we need to consider the ways in which English MPs—or English and Welsh MPs—can have a greater say on legislation that affects only England, or England and Wales.
	But what we must not do, only months after the Scottish people voted to keep our kingdom united, is allow the division of our country by the back door. Nothing we do should jeopardise the future of the Union. Last year, the Government commission led by Sir William McKay looked at that very issue. Its report included the option of a change in the way legislation is dealt with at Westminster. It would involve a Committee stage made up only of English MPs, who would scrutinise and amend legislation that applied only to England. We should consider Sir William’s approach to an English— or English and Welsh—Committee stage, because it is
	right that English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, should have a key role in considering such legislation.
	We will study the Command Paper published today by the Government, but our criterion would be not what is in the interest of the Conservative party but what is in the interest of our country. Uniting our country is more important than uniting the Tory party. Ultimately, the way in which we bring about constitutional reform has to change. The old “Westminster knows best” approach will not wash any more.
	Labour, like the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and others, is prepared to put aside tribalism and put its faith in a constitutional convention to determine a bold, new way of delivering political reform. The convention will not just be made up of elected representatives; it will give members of the public the loudest voice. That would encourage the debate that the Leader of the House talked about in his statement. The convention should consider the McKay commission approach of an English Committee stage. We hope that the Conservative party will also support the constitutional convention approach, helping us to achieve the cross-party consensus that the convention idea deserves.
	On the back of the statement I have a number of questions for the Leader of the House. Does he genuinely believe that politicians cooking up deals behind closed doors is still the best way to go about long-lasting constitutional reform? Does he agree that for reform to be successful there needs to be consensus? Therefore, what are his specific objections to a people-led constitutional convention? We are all agreed that change is needed when it comes to laws applying only to England, or to England and Wales. But as the Command Paper shows, there are several options available. What are his objections to a constitutional convention deciding on the best option available, rather than partisan politicians? Labour is proposing to devolve more than £30 billion to the cities and counties of England. Do the Government support that? If the Conservative party cares about a stronger democratic voice for England, why is it so opposed to introducing democracy in the House of Lords? Given that the House of Lords is dominated by politicians from south-east England, do the Government agree that it is time for a democratic second Chamber, drawn from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?
	When it comes to constitutional change, we must consider the unintended consequences of our actions and think through the way changes are interrelated and interdependent. There should be no more backroom stitch-ups.

William Hague: There is clearly a little bit of common ground, in that across the House we are determined to implement the recommendations of the Smith commission and to meet the commitments made in the Scottish referendum. As many of us have often made clear, that is not conditional on any of these other considerations or deliberations. Certainly that is common ground. The right hon. Gentleman did say that the Command Paper should be studied; that is certainly common ground.
	There, perhaps, it comes to an end, because the right hon. Gentleman’s attempt to suggest that the Labour party was embracing and attempting to lead this debate is at the risible end of the scale of parliamentary statements. Saying that Labour has responded to cities and towns
	demanding greater say over their affairs when, for 13 years, those rights and powers were not given to the cities and towns of England is extraordinary.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about deliberations behind closed doors. The reason we have published options for consultation today is so there can be a wide debate and everybody’s views can be taken into account. But the people who have taken part in the deliberations have included the Labour leaders of many local authorities. I have welcomed into my office to discuss these things the Labour leaders of Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Liverpool. It is not that this process is out of touch with local authority leaders in the country; it is that Labour Front Benchers are out of touch with their own local authority leaders. They have performed the remarkable feat in politics of being out of touch with themselves in this process, with part of their party willing to engage and other parts determined not to, hoping that this will go away.
	We have achieved something in terms of the Opposition’s deliberations, in that they have now said that they are open to the idea of Committee stages of Bills being dealt with by English, or English and Welsh, MPs. That is drawn from the McKay commission. But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, McKay presented a range of options, including that. We believe on this side of the House that as further devolution is now taking place to Scotland, it is necessary to have something stronger and more binding than the McKay commission recommended, which is why the addition of legislative consent motions is an idea put forward by both of the coalition parties.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the upper House. I remind him that legislation could have been enacted in this Parliament to reform the House of Lords, had the Labour party been prepared to help get such legislation through.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about a constitutional convention. The Command Paper sets out the arguments on a constitutional convention and the Government are open to ideas on that—but a constitutional convention cannot be an excuse for delay on what needs doing now in the British constitution. No one is arguing that the Smith commission recommendations should be delayed in order to wait for a constitutional convention. No one is arguing that the work on the Silk commission, and the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Similarly the resolution of the issue on English votes and English laws cannot be delayed for a constitutional convention. That must be resolved and these are the options for resolving it.

John Redwood: England expects English votes for English issues. We expect simplicity and justice now: no ifs, no buts, no committee limitations, no tricks. Give us what we want. We have waited 15 years for this. Will he now join me in speaking for England?

William Hague: Yes, for the whole of the United Kingdom, I hope, including England. My right hon. Friend has made a strong case for a long time that this issue needs to be resolved, in his view through advocating a particular option. But any of the options presented in this command paper would provide a substantial
	change in our arrangements and an effective veto for English Members over matters that affect only England, which I think is what he means by speaking for England.

Jack Straw: First, may I give the Leader of the House a spot of advice? He should not go on too much about the Conservatives’ record on devolution. When he was leader of the Opposition, his policy was to oppose devolution to Scotland and to Wales and a Mayor of London.
	On a more consensual note, does he accept that the fundamental problem is that England is so dominant within the Union of the United Kingdom? We have to be very careful about the way in which we proceed. I welcome the endorsement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) of what is in the McKay commission, which provides a way through that is similar to the proposal from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Does the Leader of the House accept that, to some extent, this is a bigger problem in theory than in practice? My recollection of the last 35 years is that, in practice, the Government of the day of the Union have also had a majority of English MPs in this House. Will he therefore, as a contribution to this debate, ensure that there is published a list of legislation that, in the judgment of officials or of himself, would not have gone through this House if it had been endorsed only by English or by English and Welsh MPs?

William Hague: Yes, it would help everyone to have that analysis. The right hon. Gentleman is right: this should be thought about in a way that respects the fact that England is such a dominant proportion of the UK as a whole. That is why we are not setting out here plans for an English Parliament equivalent to the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. These are various forms of plans to ensure that English consent is signified, or not, to legislation that has a “separate and distinct” effect for England, in the words of the McKay commission. That is an example of treating this sensitively and proportionately and respecting the overall nature of the UK. I will certainly seek to provide to the House the analysis that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the great majority of occasions in the post-war world, there has not been a party difference between an English majority and a UK majority. There might be occasions nevertheless where even such Parliaments produced different results on issues that relate only to England. I will certainly have such an analysis published.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate all of them if possible, but if I am to do so of the essence is brevity. I call Sir William Cash.

William Cash: Where there are clearly devolved functions, Scottish and other MPs from devolved parts of the United Kingdom have no justification whatever to vote on exclusively English matters—and the voters get this. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the near future by amendment of our Standing Orders as I proposed, and not by legislation—thereby avoiding interference by the courts. Will he do this?

William Hague: There is a very strong case for these matters to be dealt with by Standing Orders. In the consultation we have had so far, some have made the case for a piece of legislation such as a “Statute of the Union”, but that brings the disadvantage of bringing in judicial considerations. There is a very good case for what my hon. Friend suggests, and when we are ready to advance a single option, I hope it will be possible to debate it here. Indeed, I hope the House will be able to vote on it, having due regard to my hon. Friend’s point.

David Blunkett: In the light of the contribution from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), perhaps the Leader of the House as a reasonable man would reaffirm that our constitution does not belong to any individual political party or any individual Government. Secondly, does he accept that the history of constitutional change over recent years has not exactly been one that we would wish to emulate. In view of the alternative vote or the shambles we saw over the House of Lords proposals, would it not be sensible to take a deep breath and address these issues for the long term in a way that I believe the right hon. Gentleman would agree with if we met after 7 May next year in genuine debate outside this House?

William Hague: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these matters do not belong to any one party or any one part of the United Kingdom. That is why we brought forward this Command Paper on a cross-party basis. I regret the fact that the Opposition did not want to supply their ideas and proposals to be considered on that cross-party basis. There will be continuing opportunities to do so, however, and we have set out a number of options in order to facilitate debate on them. Let us hear the argument about all the options; then the House can consider them together exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says.

Andrew Stunell: I very much welcome the statement made today and the progress made so far. Does the Leader of the House agree that fairness has to be at the centre—fairness not only to England as a whole, but to English voters—and that the proportional element is of vital significance? Does he also agree that the absence of any proposals from the Labour party makes a proper comparison of these matters very difficult?

William Hague: It is about fairness, and I think that issue is now strongly felt by people across the United Kingdom, and most intensely in recent months by people in England. The issue must be addressed and visibly addressed; it is dangerous for the UK for it not to be addressed. On the issue of proportionality, of course we have a different view within the coalition. We have discussed electoral reform for many years and had a referendum on it, which produced a very clear outcome. We have a different view within the coalition on that, but the principle of establishing English votes on English laws is one on which we in the coalition can agree.

Graham Allen: Does the Leader of the House accept that 23 million people—more than voted Conservative and Labour combined—did not vote at the last election; that 10 weeks ago we came within 400,000 votes of the Union dissolving; and that
	a right-wing party is now coming in at 15% in current polling? Does he accept that the people are saying, “It’s broken; we ought to fix it”? Does he accept, too, that failure to include a comprehensive English devolution settlement based on the vehicle of independent local government and to substitute it with a minor issue of moving around the green benches of the Titanic on English votes for English laws just does not meet the historic need put to the right hon. Gentleman to do this job of putting forward a Cabinet Committee on devolution—not EVEL. Has he not missed that historic opportunity?

William Hague: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks, and I am grateful to his Political and Constitutional Reform Committee for its input so far and its discussion of all these issues. This is partly about decentralisation and devolution to local government in England. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that that will address the problem here in this House where laws are made of having some Members able to vote on things outside their own constituencies and other Members not able to do the same. That is why we have to make sure that, in addition to decentralisation, we address that further issue here as well.

Anne Main: I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s statement because of the democratic deficit that exists. I ask Opposition Members to imagine what they would think if we English Members of Parliament were to sit on the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament and vote on their issues. I am sure they would find that equally galling. I caution my right hon. Friend about taking the advice of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). It is no good saying that we should just look at the historical facts, because we cannot anticipate what may come up in the future that would need a veto from English Members of Parliament on English matters.

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point. It will always be valuable to look at the historical record, but we cannot forecast the composition of future Parliaments, or indeed the issues they debate. Irrespective of issues and party considerations, we have to try to put in place arrangements that are fair to the whole of the United Kingdom—including England.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I never expected to hear such a load of rubbish from such a normally sensible person? It is inappropriate to call it a dog’s breakfast because any sensible dog would turn up its nose at it! The principle ought to be inviolable that the vote of every Member of this House should be equal on all issues that come before it. I give notice to the leadership of both sides that I shall vote against any other proposal whoever puts it forward, and including a Labour Government. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

William Hague: Well, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) just made the case that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman may prefer different solutions from mine, but as I say, some of his hon. Friends are advocating that it is broke. The right hon. Gentleman
	has to understand that there is not an equality between Members of Parliament now because, of course, what we are able to vote on is already different as a result of devolution. That is the point that he is not taking into consideration. We all take due note of his concern and his opposition to any of these proposals, but it will not be possible to suppress and avoid this debate. This issue has to be resolved.

George Young: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s proposals to rebalance the constitution and to put right an injustice to England. Does he recall that 15 years ago the Procedure Committee unanimously recommended changes to our procedures, since when we have had endless debates here and numerous reports have been published, culminating in McKay 18 months ago. Nothing is being rushed, but with the imminent transfer of more powers to the Scottish Parliament, is it not now urgent to address this issue in the remainder of this Parliament?

William Hague: Yes, it is; I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I absolutely agree with him. This issue, as he points out, has been discussed for many, many years—from the recommendations of the commission on strengthening Parliament in 2000 and for the last 14 years. Two of the three options we are putting forward have been discussed for many years—from 2000 and then again from 2008—while the other is based on a stronger version of the McKay recommendations. It is now time for us to make decisions about these issues and to do so in the coming months.

Gisela Stuart: I cannot help but wonder whether the once great Conservative and Unionist party understands its own notions of Unionism any more. It certainly does not understand federalism, although it is now drifting towards it and idealising it. Is the Leader of the House seriously saying that he wants to reform the way in which we vote in the House of Commons and leave the House of Lords untouched—or are we going to have English Lords for English laws?

William Hague: Personally, I have always been in favour of House of Lords reform—radical House of Lords reform—but I believe that linking that issue to this issue of the implications for devolution of England is a recipe for delaying it for a very long time. In fact, I suspect that that is why the Labour party wants to link this issue to reform of the upper House. It is, however, an issue that must be dealt with on its own merits.

Roger Gale: At the beginning of his statement, my right hon. Friend said that commitments to further devolution of Scotland had been made by all three pro-Union parties during the referendum campaign. Those commitments were not approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There are many Members on both sides of the House who want a wholesale rather than a piecemeal solution and who want a swift solution, but who also believe that the processes should be concurrent and not consecutive.

William Hague: I also believe that they should be concurrent. The commitment is to legislation at the beginning of the next Parliament to implement the recommendations
	of the Smith commission, and it will be a commitment met, I believe, by whoever wins the general election. I hope that then, before then or by then, decisions will be made on the implications of devolution for England, so that the processes will indeed be concurrent.

Pete Wishart: The Leader of the House will of course know that the Scottish National party does not vote on English-only issues. [Hon. Members: “You did last night.”] We think that that is quite an easy principle to observe, and if the Leader of the House had bothered to pick up the phone, we could have told him how it could be done. Will he assure me that any legislation will not be tied, will not be conditional, will not be in tandem, and will not be concurrent with any consideration of more powers for the Scottish Parliament?

William Hague: I respect the fact that the Scottish National party does not usually vote on such issues, although I think that it breaks that self-imposed rule now and again. [Laughter.] I was putting it politely. However, there is nothing conditional about any of these proposals. We have made it clear time and again—the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and, I believe, the Leader of the Opposition have made it clear—that the implementation of the Smith commission proposals is not linked to any other constitutional change in any other part of the United Kingdom. Of course we can express the wish, on our part, that we will deal with the issues concurrently, but they are not conditional and not tied.

Duncan Hames: Any change in the statutory functions of English local government that involved an associated reduction in the local government grant would, of course, have Barnett consequentials, How does the Leader of the House intend to reconcile the understandable view that those would be English-only laws with the continued operation of the Barnett formula?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is aware of the commitment to the Barnett formula, but he is also aware that as tax-raising powers are devolved to Scotland, that will become less relevant over time. He is right to suggest that the level of local government finance in England has consequential effects on other parts of the United Kingdom, but the distribution of local government finance within England does not have such consequential effects, and a strong case can be made for the distribution of such finance within England to require the consent of the English Members of Parliament.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the Leader of the House accept that the sense of disillusionment with the over-centralisation of our politics and economy in London and the south-east is as keenly felt in regions such as the south-west of England as it is in Scotland? What the people of cities like mine want is more meaningful control over their own affairs, not some political stitch-up by Westminster politicians which is being rushed in this way by the right hon. Gentleman.

William Hague: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, apart from the partisan element of it. People do want more control over their own affairs. That is the
	way of the 21st century, and the Government are delivering it, although there is much more to do. The new general power of competence for local authorities, the devolving of planning functions to neighbourhoods, community rights to bid, local referendums, business rate retention by local authorities, city deals and growth deals are all in operation now. My Government colleagues and I want those policies to continue, so that there can be a greater degree of truly local control.

Oliver Heald: I welcome the statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that England is more than a clutch of regions, and that, as such, it is entitled to its own devolution? In respect of the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), we are not suggesting the establishment of an English Executive, and that in itself is a restraint on English devolution. Is it not right to give as much autonomy as possible to English MPs to make English laws? I personally think that there is a very strong case for the Norton proposals.

William Hague: My hon. and learned Friend has himself made a very strong case. He is right to say that England is more than a collection of regions. That is one of many reasons why a federal solution is not available to us in this context, and why it is important for the proper rights of the representatives—the parliamentary representatives —of England to be enhanced.

Clive Betts: The Leader of the House referred to the voting powers of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament, although not, I think, to those of Northern Ireland Members. As more powers are devolved to London and combined authorities in England, will MPs from those areas continue to have full voting rights on all matters, including devolved matters, in the House as well?

William Hague: As I made clear in my statement, it is certainly the view of the Conservative party that law-making powers should reside here at Westminster, for England. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they have put forward a different concept that can include the devolution of legislative power within England, but I am not advancing that cause. Laws that relate to England would continue to be made in the House of Commons, and, according to our options, would require the consent of English Members of Parliament.

David Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to equate the positions of Wales and Scotland? Does he, as a former Secretary of State for Wales himself, acknowledge that a great many people in Wales rely heavily on services that are delivered in England, and that it would be wholly wrong for the representatives of those people to be denied a voice on issues that so clearly concern them?

William Hague: Some of the options that are presented in the Command Paper provide opportunities to deal with that difficulty. Option 3, for instance, would allow Members of Parliament from the rest of the United Kingdom to continue to vote and speak on all issues, although they would require the consent of the English MPs to legislate on English matters. In respect of a small
	number of cross-border issues involving a strong structural dependence—health care in Wales is one such instance—there is a strong case for a wide definition of what constitutes an English matter, so that others can be involved.

Jimmy Hood: This issue is not new to the House of Commons. As the Leader of the House will recall, the Conservatives have not won a general election since 1992. I have been hearing this debate ever since 1992, and it has been Conservative policy to use a veto to diminish the influence of Scottish Members of Parliament ever since 1992. However, I am concerned less about the problems that the Tories are having with UKIP and so forth than about the impact that these proposals would have on the Barnett formula. We need to hear a clear denial that they do not provide a back entrance to its destruction. If we take away the right of Scottish Members to vote on issues that determine the Barnett formula, we shall be seeking to destroy it.

William Hague: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has given very succinct replies, but we must have shorter questions; otherwise, some Members will not be able to ask their questions, and will be disenchanted. That will be perfectly avoidable if Members show a bit of consideration for each other.

William Hague: I will give even shorter answers, Mr Speaker. What we are talking about is not some veto over Scotland, but a potential veto over what is decided in England by English Members of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Mr Hood) will bear that in mind.
	There is nothing about the Barnett formula in these proposals. That is a separate consideration. The commitment to the formula was made clear during the referendum campaign, and nothing in these proposals changes that debate and that commitment.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that those who shouted loudest for extra powers in Wales and Scotland are now doing as much as they possibly can to prevent powers of a similar nature from being given to England? As a proud Welshman and a proud Unionist, may I urge him to proceed with these proposals as quickly as possible before the general election, so that the English can be given the voice that they deserve?

William Hague: Yes, I absolutely agree. I think there is sometimes a desire on some parts of the Opposition Benches to try to suppress debate on this issue and hope that nobody will talk about it over the coming months or years. That will not be a successful approach. People across England now expect this issue to be addressed.

John Denham: The tragedy is that we are so close to a lasting settlement for England and the Union. We could agree on devolution in England, we could agree on an elected second Chamber, and we could also clearly agree on changes here. Does the Leader of the House not understand that his partisan
	and highly political desire to rush to an early vote in the Westminster club on just one element puts at risk the constitutional change this country needs?

William Hague: I do not think it is open to the Labour party to opt out of a cross-party process and accuse the rest of us of being partisan. This is a Command Paper on which two parties have participated. There would have been no harm at all in the Labour party putting its own proposals into this Command Paper, and the reason we have set out a number of proposals is so that there can be a debate, not a rush to a single proposal, and there can be consultation about those proposals. I look forward to the comments on these options from the right hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: Why has my right hon. Friend rejected the simple and straightforward solution precedented in the Government of Ireland Act, what happened in Stormont and, indeed, in the Scotland Act itself, that if a part of the United Kingdom has less power for its own MPs, those MPs should be reduced in number? Would that not make it possible to ensure a better solution? It also means that the reduced number of Scottish MPs would at least have full voting rights in this House.

William Hague: There is of course a precedent for that in relation to Northern Ireland in the past. [Hon. Members: “And Scotland.”] My hon. Friend is talking about a reduction below a proportionate representation in this House of Commons, and that has not been done for Scotland, to correct the hon. Members opposite. There is a precedent for that, but I do not think it is the answer to this question. When it comes to decisions about peace or war and major issues of foreign policy or economic policy for the entire United Kingdom, I think it is very important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be able to share equally in that on the basis of equal constituency sizes, which is a matter we will have to return to.

Nick Brown: In the north-east of England, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement will sound like Tory votes for Tory laws. Without inviting him to repeat all the generalised superficial remarks contained in the Adonis report, could he say something to the House about regional policy?

William Hague: Yes, indeed. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, regional policy has been pushed forward very seriously by the whole approach to city deals, local enterprise partnerships and local growth deals, and parts of the north-east are already benefiting from that. Indeed, there are city deals involving Newcastle and Teesside. So there ought to be greater opportunity for that whoever is in government in the coming years. That opportunity, however, does not resolve the issue of law making, which requires us to address issues in this House.

Andrew Turner: I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the work he is doing to introduce EVEL—English votes for English laws. Will he ensure that the English can vote as quickly as possible, particularly to protect smaller island and rural areas from city deals and metropolitan areas like Manchester and Birmingham?

William Hague: It is important that the ability to have greater powers at the local level is available to local authorities of every kind, and that that applies in rural as well as urban areas. Indeed, that is why a lot of our work has taken place at the neighbourhood and parish level. For instance, more than 1,200 parishes have now adopted a local neighbourhood plan with a local referendum, so increased localism and local decision making is available to people across England, and I hope they will make full use of that.

Barry Sheerman: There are times when I have been very proud of this House rising to the great occasion, but today I feel ashamed of the House and the way it is tackling this big issue of a fundamental change in our constitution and in the basis of parliamentary sovereignty. We are inevitably going to be getting rid of the United Kingdom as a concept and a reality, and not one of my constituents has ever been consulted, and nor have the people of this country, through a proper constitutional convention or a referendum.

William Hague: Discussion of a constitutional convention is in the Command Paper. We have, of course, provided an opportunity for cross-party discussion of all these issues, and I am happy to provide further opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the issue, which is why we made every effort to ensure this could be a Command Paper issued by three parties together, with parts of it put together by three political parties. His party opted out of that; perhaps he should advise it to do differently in the future.

Tony Baldry: The principle of English votes for English laws is unassailable, particularly given now the greater devolution of powers to Scotland, but can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there is nothing in this Command Paper that will lead to further layers of local or regional government, and that there is nothing in it that will result in extra cost to the taxpayers?

William Hague: Yes, I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend about that. None of these options involves additional tiers of government and we are very clear in the proposals we are putting forward on local government and decentralisation that this is working with existing authorities, giving them greater power and giving power at the neighbourhood level. So it does not involve adding to the tiers of government, nor is it intended to add to the expense to the taxpayer.

Mark Reckless: Will the Leader of the House confirm that his policy remains indefinitely to spend £1,600 a year more on each Scottish constituent than our own, and that his party will do nothing about that unfairness?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this statement is not about the Barnett formula; it is about our constitutional arrangements. The position on the Barnett formula is well known, and as tax-raising powers are devolved to Scotland, of course the Barnett formula becomes less relevant over time, as is well understood.

David Nuttall: After spending decades debating the West Lothian question, it is difficult to see how anyone could argue that this issue is being
	rushed, so may I urge my right hon. Friend not to pay any heed to those who want to kick this issue into the long grass by setting up another convention to spend years looking into it? My constituents want to see action on this matter now.

William Hague: My hon. Friend speaks up, as always, for his constituents. I think they do want to see action on this matter. Some of us have been talking about this for a very long time indeed, and many references from the Opposition Benches about a constitutional convention or reform to the House of Lords are designed to delay the matter indefinitely, rather than to assist in coming to a solution.

Paul Flynn: Will not EVEL accentuate the differences and deepen the divisions between the four countries and accelerate the progress towards the break-up of the United Kingdom?

William Hague: Not if done in the correct way. We are talking here about determining whether there is consent in England, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will study the Command Paper and some of the options, such as option 3, of the Conservative proposals, which talk about determining English consent for proposals that only affect England, rather than excluding MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom from each stage of the legislative process. We all have to give the necessary care to keeping the United Kingdom together.

Hugh Robertson: The Leader of the House is to be commended on the work he has done to move this forward, but what representations has he had from the leaders of the shire counties, who clearly fear that if there is a transfer of power to urban centres, they will be left behind?

William Hague: I take that issue very seriously, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It is possible for shire counties to join in city deals—just because they are called city deals does not mean they are only for the cities—but I will also be meeting the County Councils Network in the near future to hear its representations.

Mark Durkan: As the Leader of the House presses his version of “WesLo-min” for devo-max, does he recognise that some of us do screen ourselves out of voting on legislation that is wholly and solely English? However, many Bills here contain clauses that are varied and variable in scope. In addition, Bills that purport to be “English-only” do have implications for the base loading of the Barnett formula and others represent issues of principle or precedent such as makes them predictive legislation, not least the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which led to the expectation that a karaoke Bill would be passed through the Northern Ireland Assembly. So should people not vote on those issues here?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points and illustrates the complexity of our current arrangements; decisions about welfare payments in England of course have an immediate effect in Northern Ireland as well. Nobody is suggesting that Members of this House should be excluded from voting on matters that do affect their constituents; we are simply talking about
	determining whether there is English consent to proposals on matters that, in the words of McKay, have a “separate and distinct effect” for England and on England.

Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our overriding concern must be to preserve the United Kingdom and the sense of unity in the United Kingdom? Therefore, it should be possible to proceed with caution and by consensus to achieve that, and to persuade our Scottish friends and allies—our Scottish MPs—that they are valued Members of our Parliament but there has also to be a sense of justice for English voters.

William Hague: My hon. Friend puts it very well; there has to be that sense of justice, which is why this issue has to be resolved, but we do have to take great care with it. That is why we have presented a number of options for Members from all parts of the House to react to before all of us come to a final decision on how to proceed.

Hugh Bayley: May I remind the Leader of the House that the last time the Conservative party won 50% of the vote in England in a general election was in 1959 and the last time his party had a majority of English votes was in 1955, before most of us were born? The idea that a Conservative majority among MPs elected from England, which has been the case for most of that period, should determine English laws is simply his party putting party interest before the national interest, and that is why the Lib Dems do not support his proposal.

William Hague: On that basis, I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman supported the last Labour Government, who were elected in the whole of the UK with 36% of the vote. But he was always happy to vote for their measures and insist that they should be the Government.

Iain Stewart: May I urge my right hon. Friend to back a variation of option 3 in the Command Paper, which is simple, could be quickly implemented, does not require a change to the legislative process and does not deny any MP the right to vote at any stage? I am talking about the double majority option, which provides an English shield and English consent on matters affecting only England.

William Hague: That option is mentioned in the Command Paper as a variant of option 3, as my hon. Friend says. He and others of my hon. Friends have long put forward that proposal for a double count—the requirement for a double majority, a UK majority and an English majority, for Bills affecting England. Consulting on that proposal is part of the Command Paper’s job.

William Bain: Does the Leader of the House accept that all matters put before this House involving expenditure or taxation have an impact on other parts of the UK, in terms of public borrowing, debt and the interest rates that people across these islands pay? Does that not mean that there should be no proposal to restrict the rights of Members of Parliament from Scotland to vote either on the Budget or the Finance Bill?

William Hague: I do not accept that all matters of finance and expenditure affect the whole of the UK, and I gave the example earlier of the distribution of local government finance in England as something that affects only England—the same point could be made about the distribution of health spending in England. So that is not true of all matters, and one option in the Command Paper provides a vehicle, through a legislative consent motion, for English consent to be determined for rates of tax or welfare payments that might only apply in England in the future. But of course I think we all envisage that the overall macro-economic decisions of the country always remain a matter for the UK as a whole and for the whole of Parliament.

Christopher Pincher: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Union will only be preserved if the English want the Union too, and that means that we must move with greater speed to address this West Lothian-plus question, which has been on our backs for nearly 20 years? The proposals that he tabled show that we have the will to act, whereas the Opposition seem to have no will at all.

William Hague: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that; it is important not only to show that we are addressing this issue, which we are, but actually to address it. That means moving, in the coming weeks, to decide on one of these options and then that can be debated in this House and, if necessary, in the general election campaign, too.

Ian Lucas: Many specialist health services delivered to my constituents are delivered from English hospitals. Is legislation relating to those hospitals an English law?

William Hague: As I indicated in a previous answer, the definition of “English matters” should be quite broad when there are matters that are structurally related across borders. Understandably, there is a particular anxiety about health services in Wales, given such a close relationship with the provision of health care in England. The cross-border treatment of those issues is something we would have to debate.

Robin Walker: I welcome these proposals, because they address a real injustice by allowing English votes on English laws. However, another injustice is the unequal funding between different parts of England for health, education and local government. In order for English counties to have a proper say on that and for their voice to be properly heard, we need to resist Labour’s attempt to create artificial regions dominated by the big cities. May I therefore encourage my right hon. Friend to speak up for the English counties?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned, I look forward to discussing this point with the County Councils Network, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is very conscious of it. I reiterate that the greater freedoms and opportunities for local authorities are open to counties and rural areas, and we should encourage them to make full use of those freedoms.

Alison Seabeck: The Infrastructure Bill, currently in Committee, contains clauses relating to England, to England and Wales, to
	Scotland and to London, and permutations of all four. Voters in the south-west will not be happy if the English solution delivers up a block vote for London and Manchester MPs, who have devolved powers. The Leader of the House did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on London, so will he have another go and explain how devolved powers to London will be responded to under his proposal?

William Hague: We—both of the coalition parties involved—envisage greater devolution of powers to local authorities. I mentioned that the Liberal Democrats have proposed devolution on demand, which could include legislative powers. The Conservative party regards legislative powers as remaining here in this House, so on law relating to any part of England the decision would continue to be one for all the Members of Parliament for English constituencies.

Guy Opperman: The injustice is particularly felt by my constituents 1 mile south of the Scottish border, who wish to see powers, votes and spending devolved to them in England. Does my right hon. Friend agree that after five reports over 17 years of consideration of this process, and the Labour party now opting out of the process, we should simply press on and get the resolved settlement that we all so need?

William Hague: We absolutely should press on, and this Command Paper provides the foundation for doing so. This will be essential in all political parties, as all candidates will find in the coming general election that they need to address this issue, because the voters will want to know where they stand on it. Therefore, we should proceed with considerable speed in identifying the preferred option in our parties and in this House, and I look forward to doing so over the next few weeks.

Mike Gapes: London is not just a local government, but a city region. As a Greater London MP, I have no say on what the Mayor of London or the Greater London Authority do with regard to transport policy, yet I do have a say on matters relating to transport and roads in the constituency of the Leader of the House. Will he explain why that anomaly is not referred to at all in either the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat papers?

William Hague: I have answered that question several times. Liberal Democrats propose the devolution of law-making powers to city regions or to other smaller local authority units. We are not proposing that in the Conservative party. The laws that relate to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to mine are set in this Parliament, and it is the setting of those laws that we are discussing in this Command Paper.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents feel that we should have a fair Union, which means a fair deal for England. They say that laws that apply only to England should be voted on only by English MPs, and that anyone who does not subscribe to that view does not speak up properly for England.

William Hague: My hon. Friend’s constituents are representative of opinion across a wide swathe of England, which is why so many people in England want to see this issue addressed and the injustice that has emerged put right for the future.

Chris Bryant: These proposals fundamentally breach the theory advanced by William Pitt and William Wilberforce in the Act of Union 1801, which declared that all Members of this House should be equal—whether they are on the Back Benches or Front Benches, however big their majority and whatever kind of constituency they represent. The proposals will also lead to a bifurcated Government and they will drag the Speaker, whoever they may be, into constant party political decisions about whether or not a Bill is an English-only Bill, which is why I fundamentally disagree with them. But will the Leader of the House explain why it can possibly be right for Baron Smith of Kelvin in Glasgow to be allowed to vote on legislation on which the Member of Parliament covering Kelvin in Glasgow, who is elected, will not be allowed to vote?

William Hague: The answer is that Members of the other House are not elected representatives of any particular part of the country. [Interruption.] That is the answer. If the hon. Gentleman did not know the answer to that, he does not know the answer to very much. He should be careful about going into the history of the Act of Union with Ireland. He is quite right that William Pitt the Younger advocated that all Members of this House should be equal, but that is because the Irish House of Commons voted itself out of existence in 1799, and the decision was made to have a Union Parliament without any devolved Parliaments. What has happened in the past 15 years is the introduction of devolved Parliaments, so we have an entirely different situation from that prevailing in 1800.

Stephen Mosley: The issue of cross-border health care, which has been mentioned on a couple of occasions, demonstrates the unfairness of the current system. I have constituents who are registered with GPs in Wales over whom there is no democratic accountability whatever. The cross-border health care issues demonstrate the unfairness of the current system and the urgent need to introduce English votes for English laws.

William Hague: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, this can be unfair in both directions. He makes an important point about his constituents, and it is a further reason why we have to enhance the rights of English Members of Parliament on English matters in this House.

Nia Griffith: Instead of making allegations about our views, as the Leader of the House did in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), could he explain why he is introducing far-reaching proposals for this House without having any reform of the House of Lords to make it more geographically representative of the nations and regions of the UK?

William Hague: I am not making allegations about the Opposition’s policy; I am just wondering what it is, because there is nothing on it in the Command Paper.
	The point about the House of Lords is that for 103 years we have been debating in this House the reform and the further reform of the upper House without reaching a conclusion on the matter. Saying that these issues should be inextricably linked is a means for some Opposition Members of delaying consideration of the implications of devolution for England and putting it off for many years. The issues are not linked and must be treated on their merits.

Martin Vickers: I warmly welcome the moves towards English votes for English laws, and the sooner we can make the procedural changes necessary the better. The Leader of the House has already acknowledged the importance of local decision making, and the further we move away from Westminster, the greater the demands are for that. However, successive Governments of both sides over the years have reduced the powers of local government. Although this Government have done a great deal to improve things, will he take the opportunity that this debate presents to revitalise local government and, if necessary, to restructure it?

William Hague: Revitalising local government is an important part of the Government’s approach, but we are not advocating the restructuring of local government, which has often been expensive and time-consuming. However, we are advocating giving more powers to local government, and the details of how we could do more of that over the coming years are set out in the Command Paper.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I remind the Leader of the House that devolution to Northern Ireland occurred not 20 years ago, but 95 years ago next year, and it was not without its problems. I ask him to reflect on the constitutional proposals that were made by his then hero in the 1980s which would have changed the relationships on these islands altogether. There were three proposals, and the Iron Lady rejected them with her immortal refrain, “Out, out, out!” Should that refrain not be echoed today at a proposal that appears to me as a Member of this kingdom to be more about a party political necessity than the needs of the Members of all this kingdom?

William Hague: It is about not only the needs of the whole kingdom, but fairness to the voters of England and to the representatives in this House of the voters of England. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the Command Paper and look at the options, because some of them are designed to determine whether there is English consent on English matters without excluding from those matters Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom. I will be interested to hear his views when he has considered that.

Glyn Davies: I greatly welcome the statement by the Leader of the House and the Command Paper. The enhanced settlement of devolution to Scotland and Wales inevitably means that the English question must be addressed. Does he understand the concern of the current Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire, and indeed any future Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire, that almost the entire health care delivery to that constituency is delivered in
	England—not a part of it, but almost all of it? It seems inconceivable that that MP would not have any say at all on those powers.

William Hague: As I have already said, I very much understand that point. My hon. Friend has been very assiduous in making that argument over recent months. That is why at least one option does not exclude Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom from speaking and voting on these issues while determining whether there is English consent. It is also why we must be careful in how we define the cross-border issues, so that MPs are not unfairly excluded when there is such a strong structural relationship between the health care needs of people in parts of Wales and its provision in England.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Leader of the House explain why his party in the 50 or more years that there was a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland never proposed the sort of things we are talking about today? Could it be because his party used to be the Conservative and Unionist party and today it is morphing into an English nationalist party?

William Hague: No, it is because throughout that period, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a reduction in the number of MPs from Northern Ireland. The existence of a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland was treated in a different way in this House, by reducing the number of Westminster MPs from Northern Ireland. I do not think that he would want to advocate that now for Wales, so we have to deal with this in a different way.

Jason McCartney: My constituents tell me every weekend that English votes for English laws is a basic principle of fairness. Talking of fairness, I have more than 81,000 constituents, but a neighbouring Member has just 67,000. How fair is that?

William Hague: It is not fair. We have debated previously in this Parliament equalising the size of constituencies, and indeed reducing the size of the House, and I believe that both proposals remain important priorities for the future. The first is very important for fairness for people casting their votes in future elections.

Kevan Jones: How many Bills in this Parliament would have been affected if we had had English votes for English laws?

William Hague: A great many, because these options could be applied to parts and clauses of Bills as well as to Bills as a whole. They could therefore have affected a large proportion of the Bills that have been before the House in this Parliament.

Bill Esterson: The Leader of the House mentioned planning. Many of my constituents believe that we have a top-down approach to planning through the national planning policy framework, which favours developers over local people. If he is serious about localism and devolution, will he support changes to the planning system that consider local people and are not just a developers charter? I suggest that he starts by looking at the excellent recommendations in the Communities and Local Government Committee report on the subject published today.

William Hague: The details of the Select Committee’s report, of course, are for my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and those matters have also been debated in the House recently. I will certainly draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of ministerial colleagues. I also point out that part of what is happening with more localism in recent years is the introduction of neighbourhood plans. Over 1,200 parishes, with about 5 million people, have now adopted a neighbourhood plan. They have become a very important factor in planning decisions.

Nicholas Dakin: The English people should be trusted to speak for England. Devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London was led by referendums, and the early ones were not in favour. Does the Leader of the House believe that Westminster knows best when it comes to the English regions?

William Hague: I think that many of the cities and regions know best, which is why we are giving them more powers and responsibilities. That is what we are seeing with the agreement with Manchester and the prospect of equivalent deals in many other parts of the country. We are trying to ensure that there is much more local decision making across the cities and regions of the country, in place of decision-making here.

Brian H Donohoe: The Leader of the House came here in 1989, and I came in 1992, and during my 22 years this place has been full of anomalies. Only yesterday I was told by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries):
	“This has nothing to do with firefighters in Scotland”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1157.]
	But the debate had everything to do with Scotland, as a consequence of the fact that the Scottish nationalists introduced only part of the deal required by firefighters. On that basis, is it not true that we will now have, as a result of his proposals, second-class MPs in Scotland?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that there are many anomalies in how we do things in this House, although the injustice for the voters of England is now sufficiently great to be considered more than an anomaly. When it comes to deciding who votes on matters in other parts of the United Kingdom, it is English Members of Parliament who feel that they are second class. That is why we must deal with the issue. Otherwise, it will damage this Parliament and damage the United Kingdom.

Stephen McCabe: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) right that the Leader of the House plans to hold the Speaker responsible for determining what constitutes
	England-only matters and, if so, has he consulted you, Mr Speaker, on how that might work?

William Hague: It is envisaged in most of the proposals that have been made for English votes for English laws that the Speaker, or some other impartial authority, would have to certify what is English or English and Welsh legislation. Of course, there are other ways of doing that, for example through a panel of Chairs or some other impartial authority. I look forward to discussing these matters with you, Mr Speaker, as I do on so many matters, and with other Members of the House.

Wayne David: rose—

Mike Kane: rose—

Mr Speaker: Oh, what a delicious choice. I call Mr Wayne David.

Wayne David: Good choice, Mr Speaker.
	Following the Leader of the House’s previous answer, has he had any consultations at all with you, Mr Speaker, on possible options for deciding what is English-only legislation?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman has waited all this time only to find that his question was asked by the Member who spoke just before him. The answer is the same. You, Mr Speaker, do not play a role in determining the policies of the Government—you have enough to do in keeping order in the House. However, where there are implications for the job of Speaker, I and other Ministers will of course wish to consult the Speaker now that we have made our proposals.

Mike Kane: I put it to the Leader of the House that publishing the Command Paper is shutting the constitutional stable door after the horse has bolted. His own Chancellor has agreed a devolution deal with Greater Manchester. If he does not believe in English votes for English laws, why should anybody else?

William Hague: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor believes very strongly in English votes for English laws. He is quite right to have agreed the deal with Manchester, and we advocate in the Command Paper agreeing similar deals with other city regions so that they can have the same control over local affairs that Manchester is going to enjoy. However, that does not involve the devolution to Manchester of the legislative power of this House. The issue of English votes for English laws, therefore, must still be addressed on top of decentralisation and greater powers for areas such as Manchester.

Post Office Card Account

Steve Webb: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Post Office card account—potentially a slightly less contentious topic than the previous statement, but we will see.
	The Post Office card account provides a basic payment service by which people who are without a traditional bank account may receive their benefits, pensions, allowances and tax credits. Although most people have a bank account, there are certain groups for whom that is not viable, and for them the Post Office card account provides an important lifeline. The account is used by around 2.5 million people, including over 1.3 million pensioners. It was introduced to support the move from order books to direct payment into an account, and it was due to come to its natural conclusion in March 2015.
	I am pleased to announce that the Government have agreed a new £250 million, seven-year contract that will protect a key service for vulnerable pensioners and benefit claimants as well as helping to safeguard the future of the post office network. For those people who cannot access mainstream banking, the Post Office card account is a vital facility. Through this agreement, we are ensuring that their needs are met. The contract with Post Office Ltd will ensure that the Post Office card account remains available until at least the end of 2021. That long-term deal is good news for the users of the service, good news for the Post Office and for sub-postmasters and good news for taxpayers.
	The new contract provides a minimum of 10% efficiency savings over the life of the contract, saving the taxpayer over £27 million, while protecting the income of sub-postmasters. That is an important contribution to reducing the costs of providing contracted services, and the savings are commensurate with what has been achieved in other service contracts.
	The new contract will be provided through the FOCS—front office counter service—framework. FOCS was awarded to the Post Office in 2012 following a competitive tender, with the intention that other Government services could be provided through a framework in the most efficient way possible. FOCS provides the Post Office with a gateway to win future Government business. I am pleased that we have been able to use the framework to deliver the new Post Office card account contract.
	The latest Post Office card account contract, which was signed by the previous Administration, was due to reduce the number using the service. However, that did not happen as planned, which means we are starting the new contract with more customers than originally anticipated.
	The Post Office card account was always intended to be a stepping stone to mainstream banking. The new contract continues to support that important principle of movement into financial inclusion. I welcome yesterday’s announcement that banks will remove punitive charges from their basic bank accounts. Increased access to basic bank accounts is a huge step forward for those who have previously struggled to open an account, and it supports the delivery of universal credit, breaking down the barriers to financial inclusion and work.
	Like most other bank accounts, those basic bank accounts are accessible at the post office. This means that those who prefer to collect their money at the post office can continue to do so, preserving footfall for sub-postmasters. The Post Office also has a range of financial products which are currently being trialled in various parts of the country, and are due to go nationwide soon. This contract allows a further seven years for the Post Office to develop these accounts and move to a secure and sustainable business model.
	The benefits of financial inclusion cannot be overstated. Claimants who are paid into a transactional account are more likely to find long-term employment, and can more easily manage payment of utility bills and direct payment of housing costs to landlords. But we recognise that certain groups remain unable to access such services and the Post Office card account is designed to meet their needs, even if it is as a stepping stone to mainstream banking. The Post Office card account is simple and easy to use and is readily accessible. People with a POCA can collect payments and check their balance either over a post office counter or by using one of a network of almost 2,500 Post Office ATMs spread across the UK network. Such accounts can be opened without a credit check, which means, crucially, that they can be accessed without difficulty by people with a poor credit history.
	The Post Office card account is invaluable for those people who rely on someone else to collect their money for them, for example because of a disability. Just over half of Post Office card account users are pensioners, including a significant number over the age of 80. This agreement means that they can continue to receive their payments into a POCA and collect them at the post office, as they do now. I know how important the sense of continuity and familiarity that comes from using their local post office is for many older pensioners. I also know how important the local post office is to local communities. This contract provides certainty for the Post Office and sub-postmasters and helps safeguard the future of the post office network. The new agreement will help sub-postmasters to retain footfall and generate income for their important local businesses.
	In 2010 this Government committed £1.34 billion to maintain a national post office network, modernise branches and safeguard the future of the post offices that play a vital role in urban, deprived and rural areas. In 2013 we committed a further £640 million to support the modernisation of the post office network over the next three years. Since then, the post office network has been at its most stable for 20 years. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who has responsibility for Post Office and postal affairs, is here to support this statement.
	To conclude, this £250 million, seven-year contract with Post Office Ltd for the Post Office card account represents good value to taxpayers and security for sub-postmasters, protects local services and ensures that we continue to meet the needs of the most vulnerable users. I commend this statement to the House.

Gregg McClymont: This is a welcome announcement from the Government, especially for all those who rely
	on Post Office card accounts. Indeed, it is the only sensible decision for consumers, pensioners and small businesses and for the Government. After all, it was this Government who promised to make the Post Office the front office of Government, to the tune of contracts worth £450 million per annum.
	In the context of that promise, today’s statement raises as many questions as it answers. This is a not a new contract, but the renewal of an existing contract. What is the value of this new contract to the Post Office relative to the current contract? Where will the £27 million of efficiency savings come from? Does this mean more money for the Post Office or less? Does this statement take the Government closer to or further away from fulfilling its broken promise to the Post Office of an annual income of £450 million from the provision of Government services?
	Before this renewal, Government services accounted for about £130 million of Post Office income. What is the total amount of Government income through the provision of Post Office services which will be in place following the contract renewal? Again, does this mean more money or less for the Post Office and for sub-postmasters? The National Federation of SubPostmasters urges the Government to fulfil their promise to deliver £450 million of income per year. Can the Minister be clear to the House about whether the statement takes the Government closer or further away from delivering that promise?
	As the Minister knows, the Department for Work and Pensions had several pilots under way, which the Post Office was undertaking on its behalf. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of those pilots? They involved, for example, verification for national insurance and verification of documents for the Pension Service. What stage have those pilots reached, and will they contribute to closing the gap between the promise made and not delivered to the Post Office during the botched privatisation of Royal Mail?
	More widely, the Minister rightly reflects on the importance of Post Office card accounts to those with disabilities and to pensioners. The Post Office Local programme is part of the network transformation and can, in some circumstances, reduce the number of counters available that provide privacy to those undertaking POCA business. What is the relationship between the post office modernisation programme and the ability of Post Office card account users to continue to enjoy the privacy that they associate with post office transactions, especially pensioners and the large number of Post Office card account holders who are over the age of 80?
	The Minister referred in his statement to the number of transactions undertaken through Post Office card accounts. Does he seek to arrest the decline in usage? Is he clear that there has been a decline both in the number of people using POCAs and the number of transactions? His statement is ambiguous on that point. Finally, will he be clear about whether the Government have a strategy to increase the usage of Post Office card accounts or whether they are happy to let the decline continue?
	This is a welcome announcement for all those who use post offices, but as far as we can see, it takes the Government no closer to—indeed, it takes them further away from—meeting that broken promise to the Post Office about Government services and making it the
	front office of Government. Can the Minister provide clear answers about the value of the contract, what it means for the Post Office’s total income and what it means for all those who care about the Post Office and Post Office card accounts?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically enthusiastic welcome for this very important announcement that will help to safeguard the post office network. The big contrast between the past four or five years and the preceding 13 years is the hours that hon. Members are not having to spend running “Save our post office” campaigns. The hon. Gentleman talks about decline. The policy of the previous Government was to have rounds of post office closures, this Government have invested £2 billion in preserving the network. This contract will be a further fillip for postmasters.
	The hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing to reverse the decline in Post Office card account use. Back in 2005 there were 4.2 million people using POCAs, and in 2010 there were 3.4 million. Under Labour the number of people using POCAs fell by 800,000, so the idea that continuing decline in the use of POCAs is a new phenomenon is news to me. What is happening is that older pensioners, sadly, die and do not use a POCA any more. Newly retired pensioners tend to be more familiar with banking, so the number of pensioners using the POCA will gradually decline, but when Labour set up the previous POCA contract, it asked the Post Office to migrate 700,000 working-age people off these accounts to save money. In fact, this did not happen. When Labour set the contract, its intention was to reduce the scope.
	I made it clear in my statement that we believe we will keep the POCA over the next seven years for pensioners. People of working age, as they come within the scope of universal credit, will need a transactional bank account, so although the most vulnerable universal credit recipients will continue to have access to POCAs, we will seek to ensure that wherever possible people of working age have a transactional banking account that will allow them to benefit from direct debits, budgeting and so on. That is where they want to be.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about post office locals. I am advised by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for postal services that customer satisfaction, which is presumably the yardstick in these matters, is up in post office local branches. The hon. Gentleman asked about privacy. Presumably, when customers decide whether they are satisfied or not, privacy is one of the things they consider. In answering our questions, they say that they are more satisfied than they were before the investment went into these post offices.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about efficiency savings in the contract. Unlike the previous Government, we do look to make those savings, but we have not reduced the price that sub-postmasters get for each transaction. We could have said to Post Office Ltd, “Save us some money—give the sub-postmasters less”, but we did not do that because the sub-post offices are our priority. He asked about the figure of over £400 million. That is not a target that the Government have set for ourselves.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about other services. We are exploring the use of identity-related services at the post office. We run a cross-Government service called
	Tell Us Once for customers to report births and deaths, and we are looking at whether that can be carried out at the post office and linked with ID verification. There is plenty of potential for new services. Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency counter services have gone into post offices, as has Check and Send, an excellent service from the Passport Office. The crucial thing about this seven-year agreement is that it allows plenty of time for new services to be developed so that our post offices have a long and prosperous future.

Andrew Stephenson: Between 1997 and 2010, under Labour, Pendle lost 17 sub-post office branches. I am therefore delighted by this statement on the Post Office card account, with £250 million of support and a new seven-year contract. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the front office counter service framework will allow the Post Office to bid for, and win, more Government business in future?

Steve Webb: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The front office counter framework was competitively tendered. The Post Office won because of its unrivalled network and what it was offering, and that meant that the contract could be awarded much more straightforwardly. Using the framework, we have already been able to award other contracts for DVLA counter services, for example, and the Post Office will be able to bid for other Government contracts as they arise.

Anne Begg: In his statement and his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), the Minister made it clear that the POCA will not become a transitional account, and it is therefore less likely to be suitable for people who have been moved on to universal credit. The Government promised that jam jar accounts would be developed. Clearly, the POCA is not going to be a jam jar account, as some people had hoped. What are the Government doing about this? Who is going to provide these jam jar accounts, because as yet we do not know of any?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. We have not added features to the Post Office card account because, for example, adding direct debit means that the credit check threshold suddenly gets much more serious. Instinctively, I am with the hon. Lady on this. My approach would have been that the POCA is a good thing, so why should we not add nice things to it? We have not upgraded it, however, because one of its attractions is that people who have poor credit histories or who would struggle with some of the identity checks can be enabled to access it. In developing universal credit, my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary is working with local authorities and the banking industry to look at different sorts of accounts, including, as the hon. Lady suggests, budgeting accounts. The basic bank accounts that were improved yesterday will be part of a suite. We intend that there should be the right sort of accounts for the right people.

Jennifer Willott: I am delighted by today’s news that the Post Office will be able to serve customers using the new POCA well into the future. As
	the Minister said, that will enable the Government to achieve their commitment to protecting the post office network, unlike the previous Labour Government, who closed thousands of branches in every single constituency across the entire country. How many customers does he estimate will access the new accounts, which will bring trade into these post office branches, and how many are unable to access bank accounts at the moment?

Steve Webb: I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend has done on this. As she will recall, we met to discuss how we could deliver this contract when she was postal services Minister. About 4,000 people in her Cardiff constituency currently have Post Office card accounts, and they will welcome this announcement. She is right that we have to work out how we can develop and expand this in future. We are trying to make sure that we have the right accounts for the right people. The number of pensioners with these accounts will gradually decline. For people of working age, we want, where possible, financial inclusion and transactional accounts. Many people with POCAs do have other bank accounts—for various reasons, they hold both—but we will make sure that the most vulnerable people have access to their money at the post office.

Sheila Gilmore: I am sure that it will be a great relief to many people running post offices to know that the contract is going to be extended in this way, because there was uncertainty for some time. On being able to move from the Post Office card account to a basic bank account, I understand what the Minister said about credit checks, but would it not be possible for the Post Office to establish a basic bank account to which people could migrate, because that might speed up the movement of people into proper transactional bank accounts?

Steve Webb: Post Office Ltd is coming up with a range of accounts, some of which have monthly charges and other different features. The basic bank accounts of the largest nine clearing banks, among others, are all Post Office-accessible. The key thing is that Post Office Ltd is a business that can develop accounts of different sorts, as it is now doing—perhaps it has taken a bit longer than we might have wished—and customers can choose between them. For us, the crucial thing is that people will, if they wish, be able to get their cash at the post office, whether from a POCA, a basic bank account or a Post Office account.

Justin Tomlinson: This announcement is vital for customers in our local post office network. The previous Labour Government presided over more than 6,000 post office closures. Labour MP after Labour MP queued up to have their photograph taken before coming down to Parliament to vote to close those post offices. To what extent will this announcement protect our existing network?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a sea change. Of course, nobody notices something that does not happen. For the past four years, we have not seen these mass organised closures. It was not just attrition, but at least two rounds of organised post office closures. This Government, despite difficult financial situations, have made it a priority to address
	that. Not only have we have invested in upgrading the network, but the post office local model means that people will be able access their cash on a Sunday morning if the shop is open, and that will be good for business. This is a seven-year contract, so it covers a very long period. The intention is to give the post office network breathing space to develop new products for the longer term.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This statement is very welcome. Will the Minister tell us how it will apply to the network in Northern Ireland and assure us that it will be proportionate across the whole of the United Kingdom?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The social security administration system in Northern Ireland is a significant user of the Post Office card account, and we anticipate mirroring provision in Northern Ireland as well.

Jason McCartney: As deputy vice-chairman of the all-party group on post offices, I greatly welcome this announcement on the Post Office card account. Because of the new local branches across my constituency, we now have over 300 extra post office opening hours every month. Does the Minister agree that this signals an end to the 13 years of decline in our wonderful post office network?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right; 2010 marked a sea change in the attitude of central Government towards the Post Office. I pay tribute to him and to the all-party group for their work on this issue. I recall attending a meeting of that group. The coalition parties have shown persistently, in very concrete terms, their commitment to the post office network in a way that the previous Government did not.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the Minister’s statement. In my constituency, the local credit union uses the card accounts to allow people to deposit and access their cash. What discussions has he had with the Post Office about developing further services with local credit unions, such as jam jar accounts?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We set great store by credit unions. As he knows, we have invested about £38 million in the credit union expansion project. Previous Government interventions in this space were well-meaning but did not create a new sustainability for the credit union movement. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is a former Minister, says, “Rubbish.” The previous Government put up money for loans, the money got lent, and the credit union was no more sustainable at the end of the process than it was at the start. We are taking a different approach whereby we are trying to ensure that there is an infrastructure that makes running a credit union cost-effective. We are also very open to the possibility of a link with the post office network.

Robin Walker: As chair of the all-party group on credit unions, I was going to ask almost exactly the same question as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I commend the Minister for this statement, which is good for pensioners, good
	for consumers, and good for our post office network. Under this Government, seven local branches in Worcester have been upgraded; under the previous Government, our last Crown post office closed. That is quite a contrast.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on the crucial issue of financial inclusion. I stress that we see the Post Office card account as being particularly suitable for vulnerable people such as elderly pensioners. Over the next few years, people of working age will move from these types of accounts to more transactional accounts. The credit union movement is clearly an important part of this financial inclusion agenda. The crucial thing is to ensure that whether it is through a POCA, a basic account or any other sort of account, people can, if they wish, go to the local post office for their money, and they cannot do that if it has been shut.

Michael Weir: It might be the Christmas spirit, but I find myself in the unusual position of actually welcoming a statement from the Minister. The Post Office card account is welcome, but I have to say that the Minister is wrong in what he says about Post Office modernisation. Many of the post offices in my constituency are suffering changes, with stand-alone post offices being closed in favour of local post offices. There is real concern about the lack of positions for POCAs in local post offices, where queues can build up—many quite large communities have only one local post office to serve the whole community—and banks are beginning to close some of their branches. In those circumstances, how can he be certain that the POCA will be a stepping stone to mainstream banking?

Steve Webb: I will take what I can get: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiastic response. The 3,760 POCA holders in his constituency, as of last year, will welcome this announcement. On the issue of post office locals, each proprietor has to think what works in their premises, but I am advised by a normally reliable source—the Minister with responsibility for postal services—that queuing times are falling in the local model.

Sarah Newton: I really welcome today’s statement about real investment in this vital public service—our local post offices. May we have a bit more information on how soon POCA customers who do not already have a basic bank account will be able to pay their bills by direct debit and therefore secure the best deals on their utility bills?

Steve Webb: There is a real tension between an account that is easy to open—limited identity checks; designed for people with poor credit histories—and an account that is sophisticated and transactional, and we feel that basic bank accounts offer a bridge between those two accounts. I was delighted by yesterday’s announcement by my Treasury colleague, the Economic Secretary: one of the things putting people off basic bank accounts is getting hammered with fees, say if a direct debit fails or something like that, and the fact that those fees are no longer in place is an important step forward for people making the transition to more regular sorts of accounts.

Andrew Love: The Post Office card account was always intended as a stepping stone to a transactional bank account, which is a gateway to other financial services. The basic bank account agreement with the nine banks is to be welcomed, but there is still incredible suspicion in the marketplace about transactional bank accounts. What more will the Minister do to persuade POCA holders that it is in their interests, as well as in the interests of everyone else, to move to a transactional bank account?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are testing and trialling approaches to try to work out which sorts of accounts are most suitable for which people. It is important to understand the revolution that universal credit will bring in, because people will get the whole of their benefits—tax credits, and potentially help with housing—and they will have to budget from that one relatively large sum. An awful lot of work is going on to trial which sorts of accounts work best for which sorts of people, but over the coming years we will clearly contact people of working age to indicate to them the merits of a transactional bank account.

Simon Wright: Malcolm Fuller, the sub-postmaster of Eaton post office in my constituency, will step down from his role in the new year after decades of service to the local community. How will today’s announcement support initiatives to encourage new sub-postmasters to come forward, and to encourage existing businesses to deliver post office services in their communities?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for the more than 5,000 POCA holders in his constituency. He is right that one reason why we are delighted to make the announcement is that sub-postmasters have told us they want an end to the uncertainty. For example, if they were selling a business, the person thinking of buying it needed to be confident that the business had a long-term future. We believe that the seven-year horizon gives sub-postmasters that confidence. We hope that it may unblock some sales, and enable new people who are prepared to move on to the next generation of services to plan for the future. Crucially, to respond to my hon. Friend’s question, it will give post offices the breathing space in which to do that, which they lacked in the past.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the Minister for his statement, because the POCA clearly provides accessibility for many people, particularly elderly people, who rely on the service. In that context, what other Government financial services does the Minister contemplate treating in that way, particularly at a time when many of the mainstream banks are closing many of their branches and people do not have accessibility?

Steve Webb: We are trying to ensure that a range of Government services, not just financial ones, can be accessed at post offices. I recently renewed my family’s passports. The Post Office Check and Send service before the passports went off provided peace of mind and meant that they came back quickly. The Post Office is very good at providing that very valuable service. Identity verification will become increasingly significant: as Government services move online, the way in which
	someone proves their identity online will become important. As a trusted brand, the Post Office could play an important role as one of the potential providers of those services. Not only will services that Post Office Ltd is willing to offer on a commercial basis be available at post offices, but so will a range of Government services.

David Nuttall: The Minister referred to the fact that the Post Office card account includes the facility to enable someone to allow another person to collect their money for them, which is particularly useful for the disabled. Under the new contract, will the account still provide for the issue of a second card for someone who wants one?

Steve Webb: Yes, I can confirm that. There is a system called simple payment for some of the most vulnerable people, who used to have giros, but for those with Post Office card accounts we will continue the facility of a second card for a family member or a carer.

Jim Shannon: Last week, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) had an Adjournment debate in the Chamber on a LINK project to try to put ATMs in locations, such as villages, where there are not any ATMs already. For that reason, I very much welcome the Government’s announcement, which is really good news. Will the Minister confirm what the changes are in using the new system at post offices, and will the Government work alongside the LINK project to reduce or nullify charges for usage of the Post Office card account?

Steve Webb: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is clearly already possible to access cash from a Post Office card account through the network of Post Office cash machines fee-free. As the number of Post Office card accounts drifts down and working-age people move to transactional banking accounts, one danger was that cash machines in rural and deprived urban areas would become unviable and be withdrawn from the network. One of the things we have specifically done through the new contract is to ask the Post Office—this is ensured as a term in the contract—to retain cash machines in rural and deprived urban areas.

Alan Reid: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement. It is good news for all the village post offices in my constituency and the pensioners who use them. It guarantees the long-term future of such post offices, and it is a contrast with the attitude of both the previous Government and the banks that are shutting rural branches. For the long-term survival of such post offices, the Post Office needs to develop its own basic bank account. Will my right hon. Friend encourage it to do so?

Steve Webb: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as an officer of the all-party group on post offices and, indeed, as a persistent thorn in my side on this issue, which he recently raised at Business, Innovation and Skills questions. He has shown his commitment to post offices, and I know that his constituents will respect the work that he has done.
	We have left Post Office Ltd, as a commercial organisation, the freedom to design bank accounts of the sort it feels appropriate. It has come up with a series
	of accounts; for example, some have a monthly charge, and others have different features. It is obviously testing the market, starting—if I remember rightly—in the east of England. That is clearly a commercial issue for it, but we are keen to make sure that a range of accounts are available to people to meet their needs.

Liz McInnes: Does this contract provide more income or less income for post offices?

Steve Webb: To be absolutely clear, the amount we pay sub-postmasters per transaction will be the same. We have protected that. The number of Post Office card accounts has been falling and will continue to fall, because older pensioners die, new pensioners have a tendency to use banks more and the working-age population generally moves towards other forms of transactional accounts. However, if someone moves to a bank transactional account that is accessed at a post office, they can still go into the post office and the post office will still get the footfall. The volume of POCAs is clearly going down, but the value that we are paying in the contract per transaction is staying the same.

BILLS PRESENTED

Local Planning and Housing Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Sir William Cash presented a Bill to make provision for the clarification and improvement of local planning procedures; to make provision in relation to housing supply; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 139).

Off-Road Vehicles (Registration) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr David Ward, supported by Graham Stringer, Stephen Lloyd, John Hemming, Sir Bob Russell, Greg Mulholland and Mr Adrian Sanders, presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of a compulsory registration scheme at the point of sale for all off-road motorcycles and quad bikes; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 140).

Equal Pay (Transparency)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Sarah Champion: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make Regulations under Section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 to require employers of more than 250 employees to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether there are differences in the pay of male and female employees; and for connected purposes.
	Forty-eight years ago, the women of the Transport and General Workers Union at Ford Dagenham got up from their machines and marched for equal pay. Today we have the privilege of having some of those women here in Parliament. Sadly, they are not here to celebrate a victory won, but to support a campaign to deliver on the promises that were made by Barbara Castle and this Parliament when we passed the Equal Pay Act 1970. I am ashamed to say that 48 years on from that historic strike and 44 years since the Act was passed, equal pay is still no more than a promise.
	Women in Britain earn, on average, just 81p for every £1 earned by men. In my constituency of Rotherham, women earn just 77p for every male pound. Over a lifetime, that means women miss out on a staggering £200,000—enough to buy a house outright. Young women in their 20s, who the Government like to claim do not face the problem of the gender pay gap, get paid an average of £1,570 less a year than their male peers. In 10 years, that amount will buy them a car or pay for a deposit on a house. It is a life-changing amount that young women are denied.
	It is not just women who are poorer because of the pay gap; it is their families too. Equal pay is an issue for all of us. No father, husband or son wants the woman they care about to work in a world where they are valued less for being a woman. The Government may claim that there is no need to worry and that the gender pay gap is falling, but I would hardly call a small fall last year, after a widening gap the year before, a victory. It is true that the last Labour Government closed the pay gap by almost a third, but even that progress is too slow. Women should not have to wait another 44 years for the gap to disappear.
	Birmingham city council and, more recently, Asda demonstrated that pay inequality—being paid less as a woman for doing work that is of equal value and demands equal or even higher skills—is still a factor for women across the UK. We have progressed from the days when jobs would be advertised with one hourly rate for men and another for women, but that does not mean that the biases do not continue—they are just more subtle. According to the Chartered Management Institute, the average man’s bonus is £11,000 more than a woman’s.
	The inequality becomes self-perpetuating. Men who have earned more in one job enter at a higher salary than women doing the same job who are already employed. That is justified not by performance, seniority or skill, but by the realities of recruitment. Sometimes, as in the case of Birmingham city council workers, there are historic pay inequalities that have simply never been rectified. All I am asking for is equal pay for equal
	work. Whether on the shop floor or the trading floor, that principle is as relevant now as it was back when the women of Dagenham marched.
	Pay transparency—the simple act of a company publishing its gender pay gap—would mean that these differences were public for all to see. Why should the burden be on women to investigate pay inequality and to ask their colleagues how much they earn? How can we expect women to call out their employer if they do not even have access to the evidence? We should not have to wait for whistleblowers. We need to empower women to use the equal pay laws that are already in place.
	Of course, the pay gap is not only about how much workers in the same job are paid. It is about equal reward for equal work. It is about valuing people’s skills and experiences equally, regardless of their sex, whether they are a parent or have just returned from maternity leave, and whether they are working part time, flexitime or full time. It means not only being paid for the job that they do, rather than the person they are, but being able to expect that if they do a good job, they will be promoted; that they can keep progressing in their career; and that reaching the highest-paid role is possible.
	The workplace is changing and there are many examples of businesses that are committed to breaking down these barriers and of women who have made it to the top of their professions. However, today, in this very Government, there are 18 men in the Cabinet and only five women. In the Chamber, 23% of MPs are women and the majority of those are Labour. The Liberal Democrats have not even appointed a woman to the Cabinet in their four and a half years in government.
	Pay transparency would push companies to focus on why the pay gap still exists, whether it is because women working on the shop floor are paid less than men in the distribution centre, despite doing work of equivalent skill and responsibility; because men in the company are getting higher bonuses; or because the highest-paid roles in the company are held by men. All those factors require changes to be made to allow equality in the workplace.
	This is not about naming and shaming, about telling companies what to do or about micro-managing them; it is simply about changing the emphasis. Pay transparency places the responsibility on employers to be actively conscious of the law on equal pay, and to have policies to address the gap. It is a simple ask, and we know that because some employers, although too few, do it already. PricewaterhouseCoopers recently announced that it would join Genesis Housing and the three other companies that publish their pay gap.
	This is not a vast new administrative burden on employers. It would apply only to employers of over 250 employees, and would be as simple as publishing the information in the companies’ annual reports. What it will do is focus minds. Businesses that already publish their figures tell us as much. The insurer Friends Life says that it publishes its pay gap by each pay grade for two key reasons:
	“one is trust and the second builds on the old adage, ‘what gets measured, gets managed’… This was shown to be the case when we reported a slight widening of our gender pay gap at two middle management grades in our 2013 Report. The issue was investigated and the explanation included in the report.”
	Openness and transparency are principles that this House should be voting for and that Governments of
	all colours should champion. However, on entering Government in 2010, the two coalition parties announced that they would not be implementing section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, which the last Labour Government introduced to enable pay transparency. The former Lib Dem Equalities Minister, the right hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), made a speech in June 2012 in which she said:
	“I firmly believe that for most companies who are trying to do the right thing, voluntary business-led initiatives are key. They secure more buy-in and achieve more lasting change than the big stick of legislation… It is not about forcing companies to report information they don’t want to.”
	The Government believed that that passive approach would bring about lasting change.
	The “Think, Act, Report” scheme has been hailed by the Liberal Democrat Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), as bringing about “significant steps forward”. However, when asked, the Government admitted that only four—it is now five—of the 200-odd companies that were signed up to the scheme had published their pay gap. That is hardly surprising when the Government’s website for “Think, Act, Report” tells companies that they should publish information on their gender pay gap only
	“if they feel comfortable doing so”.
	That is hardly robust encouragement from the Government.
	It appears that the Liberal Democrats have had a change of heart. They now admit that section 78 of the 2010 Act was the right approach all along. We still have time before the election to make pay transparency a reality. It does not require primary legislation. Section 78 already gives the Government the power to make regulations to require pay transparency across all large employers.
	Finally, I want to pay tribute to Grazia magazine and its readers for their fantastic campaign, “Mind the Pay Gap”, which has seen tens of thousands of women sign the petition to enact section 78 for pay transparency. I also thank Unite and all the other unions that have championed equal pay for decades for the thousands of working women across this country.
	Today, Parliament has the opportunity to take a big step closer to making good on the promise of equal pay, which was fought for and won by the women of Ford Dagenham 48 years ago. MPs of all parties must listen to the voices of women up and down the country and support pay transparency today.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
	The House divided:
	Ayes 258, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sarah Champion, Ms Harriet Harman, Gloria del Piero, Fiona Mactaggart, Kate Green, Sheila Gilmore, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Stephen Doughty, Andy Sawford, John Mann, Mr Steve Reed and Andy McDonald present the Bill.
	Sarah Champion accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and tobe printed (Bill 138).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 838; Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 838; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 November 2014, on counterterrorism and human rights; Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on counter-terrorism and human rights, reported to the House on 26 November 2014, HC 836; Oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill; and Written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 859.]

[3rd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Mike Weir in the Chair]

Clause 21
	 — 
	General duty on specified authorities

Hazel Blears: I beg to move amendment 30, page13,line34,at end insert
	“and must also develop capacity to combat and reject the messages of extremism”.
	This amendment introduces a requirement to support work combating the ideology of extremism as part of preventing people being drawn into terrorism.

Michael Weir: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause 21 stand part.
	That Schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
	Clauses 22 and 23 stand part.
	Amendment 19, in clause24,page15,line6,leave out “may” and insert “must”
	Changes it from optional to compulsory for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to accompany the statutory obligation provided for under Clause 21.
	Amendment 31,page15,line7,at end insert—
	‘(1A) Any such guidance should include a requirement to develop capacity to combat and reject the messages of extremism”
	This amendment introduces a requirement to support work combating the ideology of extremism as part of preventing people being drawn into terrorism.
	Amendment 20, page15,line21,leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
	(a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions, and
	(b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force.
	(6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section.
	(8) Such an order—
	(a) is to be a statutory instrument, and
	(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.”
	This would ensure that statutory guidance produced under Clause 24 was subject to an affirmative resolution of each House.
	Clauses 24 to 28 stand part.
	Amendment 21, in clause29,page17,line29,leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	‘(7) To support panels exercising their functions under this section the Secretary of State must—
	(a) provide guidance on the exercise of those functions;
	(b) provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes that may be referred to under subsection (4);
	(c) ensure that the providers listed under paragraph (b) are subject to monitoring.”
	This would give a greater role to the Secretary of State in supporting the role of local support panels. The Secretary would have to provide guidance (rather than it being optional) and she would also have to provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes and ensure they would be subject to monitoring.
	Amendment 22, page17,line41,at end insert—
	“(c) the responsible local healthcare commissioning group; and
	(d) local representative of the National Offender Management Service.”
	This would include local health bodies and the probation service on the assessment and support panels.
	Clauses 29 and 30 stand part.
	That Schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
	Clauses 31 to 33 stand part.
	New clause 12—Review of international best practice around deradicalisation—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State Shall, within three months of this Act coming into force, lay before both Houses of Parliament a review into international best practice around deradicalisation.
	(2) The review under subsection (1) shall include in particular—
	(a) examination of best practice in—
	(i) Germany;
	(ii) Denmark;
	(iii) Sweden;
	(iv) other countries as determined by the Secretary of State.
	(b) the role of community-based organisations in developing and delivering strategies to prevent radicalisation and to deradicalise individuals.
	(c) evidence-based recommendations for the rapid implementation of a comprehensive deradicalisation programme in the UK.

Hazel Blears: Before embarking on my remarks on the amendments, I want to say a few words about the appalling events that have taken place in the past 24 hours that illustrate the importance of the work we are doing this week in Committee. I am sure the Committee will join me in sending our deepest sympathies and thoughts to the families of Katrina Dawson, the young barrister, and Tori Johnson, the café manager, who were killed during the 17-hour siege in the Lindt café in Sydney. Those were horrendous events and the whole community in Sydney is shocked. Our thoughts are with them and their families.
	Also in the past 24 hours, we have seen a terrible attack on a school in Pakistan. I understand that at this moment the figures are hard to determine, but about
	128 people have been killed, the vast majority children under the age of 16. As far as we know, six gunmen broke into the school compound, entered every single classroom and killed the children. Locals heard the screams of students and teachers. This has been described as a national tragedy and utter barbarism. I am sure the Committee endorses those sentiments. The work we are doing this week sometimes does not necessarily attract as many Members to the Chamber as other topics, but it is of the utmost importance to national security.
	Amendments 30 and 31, tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), seek to address what we consider to be a really important gap in the proposed legislation. We welcome part 5 of the Bill as a whole, and we had a good debate on it on Second Reading. The Government’s proposals to put the Prevent strategy and the Channel programme on a statutory footing are absolutely welcome.

Lady Hermon: Will the right hon. Lady join me in saying how disappointed she is that part 5, which is a critical part of the Bill, does not extend to Northern Ireland? Young people in Northern Ireland are not immune to being radicalised and entreated to join terrorist organisations.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady has deep, if not unique, experience of the practicalities of these issues in her community in relation to Northern Ireland terrorism, which we have faced for many decades in this country and in Ireland as a whole. She makes a powerful point. I am sure that the provisions aimed at preventing young people in particular from being drawn into terrorism would have the same applicability in Ireland as they do in our country. In fact, I am sure there are many lessons we can learn from the dreadful experiences in Ireland that could inform our policy and practice in England, Scotland and Wales. I hope she will return to that in her remarks later on.
	I welcome part 5 of the Bill and putting the Prevent and Channel programmes on a statutory footing. I hope that will succeed in achieving more consistency, better practice and the sharing of projects. At the outset, I say to the Minister that I was very grateful for the recent briefing given to members of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the operation of some of these programmes. I think I saw a step change in intensity, breadth and depth in some of the programmes being implemented. I give the Government credit for doing that. As ever, I will say to him, “Good try and good effort, but there is much, much more we can do,” but I was pleased to have that information.
	Amendments 30 and 31 are small, if not quite perfectly formed, but I hope that they will enable us to have a good debate on one of the most important things we ought to be doing to stop people being drawn into terrorism: challenging and combating the ideology that is the foundation of many of the problems we find here and across the world in the global jihad movement and in extreme political Islamism. I hope the amendments will be a catalyst for debate and I am very interested in what the Minister has to say.
	Amendment 30 relates to clause 21(1), which puts a general duty on local authorities and other agencies to have regard to work done to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism when they are exercising their functions. The amendment specifically requires that
	when those duties are being carried out, they must also develop capacity to combat and reject the messages of extremism. Amendment 31 relates to clause 24, which provides that the Government should produce guidance on how those duties in clause 21 are to be carried out. I am very disappointed that the guidance has not yet been published. The Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill state that the guidance will be published in tandem with the Bill. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to have the fullest possible debate that I want us to have, without having some guidance in front of us. A key question for the Minister is when will the guidance be available? Will it be available before Report at the very least, so that we can have a full and proper debate when the Bill returns to the House? Amendment 31 states that the guidance should include provision on developing capacity to combat ideology.
	The purpose of the amendments is to fill a gap in the Bill. My biggest concern is that part 5 of the Bill is currently couched in terms of addressing the vulnerability of individuals being drawn into terrorism. Clause 28 refers time and again to working with individuals who are already at risk of being drawn into terrorism. There are two things to say about that: it is a narrow interpretation that deals with individuals, but it also deals with individuals when they are already on the path to radicalisation. I believe there is a real gap in the Bill. As well as work with individuals, work ought to be undertaken on a broader basis with families and communities to build resilience so that people are able to withstand and reject the messages of extremism in the first place.

Keith Vaz: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the amazingly important work she does on this issue. She is making a very powerful argument. Do we not also need to reassure families that the purpose of participation in those engagement activities is not punishment but rehabilitation? We have had far too many examples of families ringing up and reporting young people at the centre of this only for those young people then to be broken away from their families. It is important to keep the family unit close together when dealing with these issues.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is correct to say that much of this work needs to be done with families in a supportive environment. People who are already involved in terrorism are another matter. Unfortunate though this may be for some of the families affected, there will often be a case for prosecution when people cross the line and engage in criminal activity. Before that point, however, if we can find at the earliest possible stage people who are just beginning to be groomed—this is about grooming, which is relevant to other contexts as well—and who are about to take that path, and if we can support them and get good families and the rest of the community around them to give them resilience, we will have a much better chance of keeping them out of trouble than if we let them go down that path. It is much harder to bring people back than to stop them getting on that conveyor belt in the first place. That is why this work is so important.

Mike Hancock: I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady that we have to start the process as early as possible, but the real problem in
	my city, which has been suffering quite badly from extremism—we have already lost four young men and there are others still out there—is how to give confidence to families in the community that, first, they will be taken seriously, and secondly, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, that, somehow, their children will not be punished. How do we get to the families? I have yet to hear a decent argument that will give confidence to families.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The work is difficult and complex. It is not easy. During my contribution I shall give a couple of examples that I hope will reassure him that we have made more progress over the past couple of years than in the past on exactly the area he mentioned.
	I want to cover several aspects. Why is this work important? Who is best placed to do it? That is a key issue. I also want to address the importance of having an online presence these days, because so much is done through social media. I also want to address the role of religious leaders and scholars. That is a controversial area, but it is absolutely essential to work with them. I shall also give some practical examples.
	Why is the work important? Young people are being drawn into situations and scenarios that are absolutely horrendous for them and their families.

Bob Stewart: The right hon. Lady is a good friend of mine and one thing that has not been mentioned so far is friends. Does she agree that the peer group is probably as important—and sometimes more important—in influencing young people? I speak as the father of four teenagers.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman, whom I count as a friend in the House, makes an extremely important and valid point. Interesting research has been done lately on the contrast between exposure to radicalisation online and peer groups. It is very interesting that we concentrate on having a presence on online social media, but evidence is emerging that peer group influence is just as important—possibly more important—than online messaging.
	This work is very important, particularly for young people who are even more vulnerable. Quite a lot of research has been done on people with mental health problems and how vulnerable they are at certain points in their lives. We had a good discussion about that on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about the tipping point and what we really know about the issue. The work is also important because it counters the justification for terrorism and the powerful narrative about grievance and victimhood, which underpins all the work done by our Contest counter-terrorism strategy.
	In the past such work was seen as something of an add-on to the Contest strategy: the important thing to do was to pursue the terrorists, disrupt plots, prosecute and convict. All that is absolutely essential, but because the Prevent strand of our work is about emotional vulnerability, mental health problems and families, friends and peer groups, it is much more difficult to have direct and targeted strategy. It was therefore almost seen as a
	second-order issue. I am absolutely delighted that Prevent has now been put centre stage not only because the Bill puts it on a statutory footing, but because of the contributions of many Members. Of the 500 young people who have gone to Syria, 250 have come back, some of whom will be radicalised and pose a threat to this country. There is now an increased focus on that aspect, and I am absolutely delighted about that.
	I ask the Minister whether that increased focus will be reflected in the money to be allocated to the Prevent programme. I would be very interested to know how much of the £130 million that the Prime Minister promised will actually be allocated to Prevent and Channel work.

Lady Hermon: I am sincerely grateful to the right hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on her once more. Church leaders are another very important and influential group. I speak from the horrible experience in Northern Ireland. My late husband was the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the worst of the troubles—indeed, he was the longest serving Chief Constable—and the late, wonderful Cardinal Cahal Daly, the leader of the Catholic Church, condemned, without hesitation, IRA violence and beseeched young people not to get involved with the IRA. The involvement and contribution of religious leaders is hugely important.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Lady makes another point illustrating the depth of her personal experience of the issues under discussion. The leaders of our faith groups play an essential role. Increasingly, Muslim leaders are condemning many of the atrocities, even so far as to issue fatwas and to say that they are un-Islamic activities. There is, however, further to go, because it is one thing to condemn something, but the big challenge is to build an alternative narrative that says it is not justified by religion or Islam, and that the way in which quotes from the Koran are twisted and perverted to justify violence is absolutely wrong. Government cannot play that role, and nor should it: it ought to be the role of respected scholars and religious leaders in the community. That work is essential, because the violence is justified by reference to a perverted view of a religion, which is a betrayal of mainstream, moderate Muslims.

David Ward: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the distrust and suspicion in some communities of what might happen? After the Bradford riots, many parents escorted their children to the police thinking they would get told off, but they ended up with long, extended prison sentences for actions that, at the beginning of the day, were simply not in the minds of those young people. There is a danger that people will be reluctant to come forward because of the way in which they will be dealt with by the police.

Hazel Blears: I am very much aware of the difficulties faced by people in such circumstances. It can be a dilemma for families and friends to take those steps, but what I will go on to say might reassure the hon. Gentleman to some extent.
	Sara Khan is the director and co-founder of We Will Inspire, which might be an unfortunate name, given what has been said so far in the debate. The group works with Muslim women and empowers them. Sara Khan says:
	“When I was growing up I was exposed to a moderate British Islam which talked about integration, active citizenship, love for one’s neighbours and it was this theological grounding that played a significant role in making many young Muslims that I knew resilient to the extremist narrative.”
	She goes on to talk about a project she did:
	“Earlier this year, Inspire completed a 6 week challenging extremism programme in Leeds to help educate women about the extremist threat and taught them key theological counter-narratives to extremist ideology. Many of the participants lived doors away from the homes of the 7/7 bombers and participants time and again stated ‘if I knew this information ten years ago when my children were teenagers, I would have taught them about the issues raised in this course. This is the first time I’ve been educated on such a crucial and important topic.’ These women expressed feelings of disappointment in religious and civic Muslim leaders in not providing their children with a contextualised understanding of Islam and their inability in directly challenging extremist ideas so easily available on the internet.”
	When such work is done, therefore, and people feel confident in being able to rebut those arguments, it is absolutely possible to provide that kind of community assurance.

Mike Hancock: I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady about the role of women in the community. I have talked to women in communities in Portsmouth, some of whom have lost their sons. They wished they had had more information and had been aware of what was going on. The trouble was that those young people had been radicalised outside the home and, in most cases, outside their working environment. Most of those young men were in further education and that was where they had been radicalised, which led them to go to Syria and, ultimately, to lose their lives.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is right. He will see that in schedule 3 to the Bill there is a list of educational organisations that will be subject to the general duty in clause 21. I am pleased about that, and hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that, as well as formal education institutions, madrassahs will also be covered by this kind of work. Sometimes informal educational settings do not have standards that are as robust as we would all like.
	Sara Khan has also given a good example of where community resilience building has worked really well, in Bristol. Five or six years ago, when local people were worried about young people being drawn into extremism, they set up an organisation called Naseehah, which trained 25 local people to recognise radicalised people, and then support and deradicalise them using Islamic theology. A potential suicide bomber who wanted to blow up Bristol town centre was sent to prison, where he was deradicalised. He then sent a message of endorsement to the community organisation, saying how important it was to challenge extremist ideologies.
	That is one of the best illustrations I have seen of preventing extremism. It is about building resilience in communities, directly challenging the ideology, supporting vulnerable individuals and then referring them on to a channel project for an early intervention. If all the parts of the circle work together, we have a really powerful mechanism. At the moment, the Minister has a general duty on Prevent and his channel provisions, which deal with individuals. I honestly think there is a gap on challenging ideology and building the resilience of communities so that they can take that work forward.
	When I have raised that matter previously in the context of the Bill, people have said that that is implicit in clause 21—if there is a duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism we will have to challenge the ideology. If it is implicit, what is wrong with making it explicit? The Prime Minister has said time and again—in his Munich speech, for example, and in his speech in Canberra—that this is a long-term generational struggle. It therefore ought to be explicit within the legislation. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about the Prevent review, but that was in 2011. I hope to persuade him today that it is a tiny step to say that work under clause 21 will include combating ideology.
	I will move on now to online messaging. We have discussed previously some of the excellent work done by Erin Saltman of Quilliam, who has pointed out that, yes, it is important to take pernicious material off the internet so that people cannot access it, but that is not enough. People will find other ways to put that information back up, perhaps via another website, as there is still the technology. Therefore, what Quilliam has classed as counter-speech is very important. The hon. Member for New Forest East has talked a lot about that issue and has a lot of in-depth knowledge on it.
	Quilliam has been good at saying what that counter-speech should look like. We need three things: a good message, credible messengers and a means of getting the message across. Quilliam has made the distinction that that should be done through a partnership between civil society, the Government and local government, and has pointed out that civil society organisations are often the best placed to deliver that message. It is not always the case that the Government have to do everything; they can facilitate, help, encourage and provide financial assistance, but the people out there in civil society organisations are crucial to efforts on this matter. Quilliam has made the point that many extremist groups are themselves peripheral civil society groups, so what better way to challenge them than robust civil society groups with really good values that want to do the right thing?
	That point brings me on to the role of scholars and of theology. We have already had a good discussion on that. Ed Husain, who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, has written a very good article, called “Until We Understand ISIS, We Cannot Hope to Defeat It”. He talks at great length, in a much more expert fashion than I can, about the way in which religious ideology drives ISIS. He talks about the Salafis and their adherence to a violent creed around Islam:
	“To the violent Salafi, tawheed is political as well as credal. To rule by democracy is to violate God’s sovereignty. Man-made law is the ultimate violation of pure tawheed”—
	That is, under the ISIS version—
	“and, to oppose this corruption of monotheism, extreme Salafis will walk the path of jihad. Their jihad is not to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad or a secular government; it is to create ‘God’s government’ or a caliphate that holds up God’s law by applying their form of sharia.”
	That is an interesting analysis of why people hold so dearly to that kind of ideology. Fortunately, only 3% of Muslims hold to that creed, but it can be influential in the wider sphere. When something is explained by reference to religion—the things that people hold really deeply and have a real adherence to—that can be very powerful indeed.
	Ed Husain goes on:
	“Isis offers a caliphate and death. Our message needs to be of life, an Islam of the Muslim majority supported by 1,400 years of history.”
	So he has an optimistic message as well as a dire warning. Many of us in this House will never have that depth of knowledge and expertise; if we are not of the faith and have not been brought up with it, we will have some knowledge, but being able to work with people who have that depth of understanding will be really important for us. Will the Minister make absolutely sure that when we are doing Prevent work and building resilience, we draw on all the skills and talents of people who increasingly are doing a lot of academic research on this area and have a lot of in-depth knowledge?
	In other places around the world, people are engaged in exactly the same work as we are. In Singapore, a religious rehabilitation group has set up a counselling centre and reference centre for religious teachers, researchers and the community. The Australian Government have just produced their first strategy on countering violent extremism. That strategy discusses building
	“community cohesion and resilience to violent extremism”
	and the need to work with communities,
	“both through their own activities and in collaboration with government”
	to do this kind of work. If building community resilience can be in the Australian strategy on countering extremism, I am sure we ought to be doing precisely the same in our legislation.
	This is an emerging area of study. As we said on Second Reading, no one has all the answers. It is a complex and developing area, and we are learning a great deal as we go along. I was heartened to see Bradford’s action plan for the Prevent programme for the next two years, “Working Together to Challenge Extremism”, which is very practical. I was pleased to see that it says:
	“Our approach is centred on challenging the ideology which leads individuals to extremist views and actions. Prevent will work with young people offering them forums to express themselves. Through education and dialogue we will provide access to a wide range of knowledge and opinions enabling groups to further develop ‘critical thinking’ skills and to make informed choices.”
	That is a really good encapsulation of what the duty in clause 21(1) should be doing. If in their action plan Bradford Prevent workers can talk about combating ideology, I am again at a loss to see why we cannot incorporate amendments 30 and 31, on combating ideology, into the Bill. That is a really important message that we should be sending out to people in everything we do.

James Brokenshire: I will not pre-empt my speech by seeking to respond to all the points made so far, but I thank the right hon. Lady for the manner in which she is approaching the debate. Let me assure her that the fundamental aspect of challenging ideology is at the core of Prevent and the intent of putting this on a statutory basis is to endorse the work of Bradford and many other local authorities and organisations that are doing absolutely that.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record in such trenchant terms and I still want to encourage him to take the extra small step of
	putting it on the face of the Bill as well as putting it on the record in
	Hansard
	. Perhaps we will be able to do that together with our colleagues.
	I have a few questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that tackling the ideology is important? He absolutely does. Does he agree that there is a gap in the legislation, in that it does not refer specifically to this work? Does he agree that this work should specifically be included in the guidance? I would be very interested in his response on that point. We might actually see the words “combat ideology” in the guidance, which would be very helpful. Perhaps we could return to the issue on Report to see how far we have moved.
	My final questions are about resources. How much of the £130 million announced by the Prime Minister will be allocated to Prevent and Channel? We cannot do this work without the resources and the funds to do it. When does the Minister expect to be able to publish the counter-extremism strategy that I know he and the Home Secretary are working on? That would provide an important backdrop to the legislative work we are doing to make this happen.
	I think there is a great deal of consensus across the House. I wish we were not having this debate and that we were not faced with the terrorist threat that we are, but as we are I am pleased that the Prevent part of the counter-terrorism strategy has become more central to what we are doing. There is recognition that if we stop people being drawn down this path, it not only would be good for them but would mean that we would not have to spend millions and millions of pounds on disrupting the plots that unfortunately threaten the essence of our nation. As with many other programmes, if we invest in prevention we do not have to pick up the pieces at the end of the day.
	I am an optimist and although this work is difficult, I believe that if we work together—communities, central Government, local authorities, families, practitioners and academics—and ensure that we put every bit of our energy into preventing people from being drawn down this path, we can all learn together, although it will take time, and we can ensure that we live together as communities in peace and prosperity rather than being driven apart, as we are at the moment, by the hatred of this pernicious ideology, which is causing so much heartbreak and concern to communities across the world.

Julian Lewis: I rise to support the thrust of the argument made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). We have worked on these issues in tandem so many times that if they were put onto a DVD, we would be in danger of compiling a box set between us. However, by returning to the same subject again and again and often in the same terms in our campaign to get the Government to do more in this field, we are illustrating the principle that the Government ought to be applying when they do that—namely, if one is to win an argument about or involving ideology, it is not good enough to set out one’s stall a single time as though one were a university professor and to think that that is the end of the matter. One must keep the message coming over and over again until one gets one’s own way. We are saying that what is lacking in the machinery is the ability to consolidate and wage counter-propaganda warfare—I use that term in a non-pejorative sense—against this barbaric ideology,
	and we are talking about doing it in a way that will have an effect at a much earlier stage of the process than most of what is proposed in the Bill as it stands.
	It is quite understandable, in the light of atrocities such as 9/11 at one end of the spectrum and what happened in that restaurant in Sydney in Australia at the other, that the Government’s first concern must be countering and impeding what in IRA terms used to be called the “men of violence”. I fully accept that as long as there is a totalitarian ideology at large in the world, in most societies, even democratic ones, there will always be a few people extreme enough, unbalanced enough, criminal enough or at a loss and vulnerable enough for indoctrination to subscribe to it. Even in this day and age, we can find supporters of Aryan theories of Nazism and supporters of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism, but the key point is that those supporters are absolutely isolated from the wider communities in which they live. We are not concerned about the ability to prevent, by persuasion or counter-indoctrination, every last person who is susceptible to becoming an extremist from becoming an extremist. We are talking about ensuring that that minority remains a minority and that their poison does not leach out into the wider community and, in particular, that the counter-measures taken by the state against what they are doing do not have the effect of radicalising the wider community.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is always very generous in these debates. Although I agree with almost everything he says, I have a small concern and perhaps he could talk me through some of it. He talks about “combating” extremism and ideology, but does he not think that the whole notion of combat and conflict was one of the things that got us into this trouble in the first place?

Julian Lewis: I disagree. When one is dealing with an intolerant ideology, one cannot simply say that one will, through some calm rationalisation, remove all the barbs, evil and poison. I am talking about what must be done to counter the pernicious ideology with which we are confronted.

David Davis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Lewis: I had not quite finished, but of course I will.

David Davis: Although I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, I rather agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that we are sometimes very unwise in our choice of words. When we choose words such as “war on terror”, we give the other side the standing of soldiers when often we are dealing with criminal misfits. Should we not be more careful about our language?

Julian Lewis: Absolutely, and by using concepts such as “the war on terror” as part of our counter-propaganda campaign we may indeed be scoring an own goal. But in discussing techniques for what we are doing in this place, believe me, there are not a host of radicals
	hanging on every word we use in this debate about the machinery that we should set up. Once we have set up the machinery, we can then go into the niceties of which expressions we use and which we do not. But let us be frank; this is a battle of ideas. It is a battle between barbarism and civilisation. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and others can shake their heads as much as they like but were I to make, for example, a similar argument against racist and Nazi exterminatory ideology, they would not blame me for couching the argument in the terms of a battle of ideas. It is a battle of ideas; the people who subscribe to this extreme doctrine have declared war on our civilised standards of democracy and tolerance.
	I always mention—it so appropriate and someone always forces me, or perhaps I should say, incentivises me to do so—what the late great Sir Karl Popper described as the paradox of tolerance in a free society. He defined it in the following terms: you should tolerate all but the intolerant because if you tolerate the intolerant, the conditions for toleration disappear and the tolerant go with them. I make absolutely no concession to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire or indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). My right hon. Friend was talking about something slightly different—what we do when we are engaged in a battle of ideas—so I will give my right hon. Friend that get-out. But I make no concession to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about using the phrase “a counter-propaganda battle.” That is exactly what it is. We used to wage it against fascism and Nazism and against communist ideology and extremism. This is the latest incarnation, albeit one that goes back to a time hundreds of years before those terrible and extreme ideologies came on the scene to terrorise mankind.
	It is fully understandable that a Government’s first concern has to be with the end of the conveyor belt at which fully-formed terrorists spring into action, either on what they call a “spectacular” scale by killing hundreds or even thousands of people, or what we on the Intelligence and Security Committee prefer to call the self-starter end of the spectrum. We use that rather than the “lone wolf” appellation for reasons similar to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. But whichever it is, by the time we reach that end of the conveyor belt nothing can be done. I venture to say that even the best counter-radicalisation and counter-extremism programme will not prevent some individuals from getting on that conveyor belt and travelling all the way to the end. The question is how we isolate them from the majority and prevent them from infecting the majority.
	In the amendment, my opposite number—and friend—the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and I are trying to get something stronger in the Bill. For example, we are trying to add to clause 21 words about developing
	“capacity to combat and reject the messages of extremism”.
	I am terribly sorry but the word “combat” is in there; I make no apology for it. The clause says that a
	“specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”
	I think having “due regard” is a pretty weak obligation and, as the right hon. Lady said, much of the focus here is on the obligations of various organisations and authorities
	covered by the Bill towards individuals who have already been identified as being vulnerable, at risk or on the path towards radicalisation. But we need to do something else. We need to try to create an atmosphere and a climate that is totally hostile to the propagation of the basic extreme ideology so that it becomes increasingly difficult to find anyone who is on that path to radicalisation because the whole concept of the ideology is anathema to society as a whole, or will be by the time we have finished.

Bob Stewart: I have been listening to my hon. Friend talk on the subject of ideology. One thing that crosses my mind is that some of these gentlemen may well have no ideology whatever, beyond the fact that they think that it is a good cause and they are a jihadi and are suddenly big men in their community. They can swank around and say “I’m a jihadi and I’m going off to fight.” After all, did not one of them have “Islam For Dummies” in his bag when he left?

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and the insincerity of some of those who do these sort of things is an important issue. It is important because if we succeed in making adhesion to the ideology something that nobody in the community would want to touch with a bargepole, it makes it much more difficult for anyone motivated by the desire to say “Look at me: I’m this glamorous figure and I’m going on jihad”, particularly if they know that the rest of the community would respond with “What are you saying? Are you mad? Why do you think we should admire you for saying that you are signing up to this ideology?”
	A related point common to all these totalitarianisms is this: it is interesting to note how often everybody else gets wrapped up with the historic inevitability of whatever extreme cause it is or the God-given duty to follow it, but funnily enough, it is the people at the top who always seem to end up having supreme power over everyone else. Is it not convenient if someone is an megalomaniac to have to hand an ideology that justifies doing whatever the person wants to do in a society in which civilisation has broken down? As the famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes said, life would be “nasty, brutish and short” in such circumstances.
	In reality, these extreme ideologies allow psychopaths and megalomaniacs to get to the top and exercise untrammelled power—but not, of course, for themselves. No, they are doing it because God has laid down that society should be run this way. I feel that, over many hundreds of years, our civilisation has torn down this edifice of extremism, and most of us feel that we will be damned—I use the word almost literally—if we do not stand up to prevent it from being re-erected in the heart of our own society or other societies.

Mike Hancock: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not fall into the trap that his hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was leading him into—of believing that these young men and women who have gone to Syria were parading themselves around the community saying that they were on their way there. I do not think that any available information suggests that that is the case. In fact, it is the very opposite of the case.

Julian Lewis: Indeed. It is certainly true that, for obvious reasons, many of these journeys are undertaken in conditions of great secrecy. I cannot help interjecting one of my concerns—I have to be careful not to step into judicial areas and I make no reference to any particular recent case even though there might have just been one—which is about judges who take the view that they want to set exemplary and terribly harsh sentences on people who have come back when we do not know whether they have done anything while overseas other than commit the crime of going overseas to fight in the conflict. Handing out a sentence that would be commensurate with the sort of sentence someone would get in this country if they have committed manslaughter and taken a life, must be a huge discouragement to members in these communities—mothers, for example—to co-operate with the authorities when they are trying to get their sons back and when there is no reason to believe that their sons have any evil intent to carry out terrorism on their return. That is why we sometimes feel there is a need for greater co-ordination and that the issues should not be managed within just one Department. We should try to work out an integrated strategy.
	Let me return to the point about counter-propaganda. I learned this lesson many years ago in an entirely different context—in fact, in several different contexts where time and again one would see extremist minorities hijacking moderate majorities and purporting to speak in their name. Where that sort of thing was going on repeatedly, it was almost like trench warfare or a battle of attrition. In those days, such battles would be carried out in the letters columns of the newspapers. A particular organisation or cause might get report after report in the media—and nobody would be answering. The way to deal with it then was to ensure that every report was followed by another report—or, alternatively, a critical letter in the press—so that eventually the radicalisers and the counter-radicalisers would be neutralised, and the wider community would say “We are sick of all this bickering—why don’t both of you just shut up and stop?”
	We are not talking about some idealised situation in which we shall be able to let down our guard because there will never again be a small number of people who are willing to try to carry out terrorist acts at the end of the process. We are talking about a wider threat: the danger that, however effective we are in catching terrorists at the end of the conveyor belt that leads to their crimes, there will always be plenty more being fed on to the beginning of the conveyor belt by people who, shall we say, have a certain strategic grasp of what they are trying to achieve.
	I thank the Committee for its patience in listening to my speech. As I said earlier, the sort of counter-campaigning that needs to be done on the issue of extremist ideology is, in a sense, demonstrated by the fact that we have to keep returning to this subject until the House gets sick of hearing from us, and the Government decide that the line of least resistance is to toughen up the legislation and create an agency that will be able to supervise, co-ordinate and resource the efforts of moderates in our Muslim community to ensure that their own communities are not hijacked by the barbarians.

Caroline Lucas: I want to say a little about new clause 12, which I tabled. I believe that there is strong evidence from countries that
	are already investing in deradicalisation programmes that they are effective, and I think that we need to look more closely at those programmes—as well as counter-radicalisation programmes—and learn from them.
	Let me make it clear at the outset that none of the programmes is a substitute for effective counter-terrorism legislation. They are, however, an important tool that we can and, I believe, should be using to better effect in tackling terrorism. They acknowledge that someone becomes radicalised for a reason, and suggest that therefore, in principle, that person can be deradicalised.
	Members who were in the Chamber yesterday may have heard me read the words of Abubaker Deghayes, a Brighton man whose two sons were recently killed while fighting in Syria. He warned:
	“The strategy you are using with our sons does not work. You are criminalising them just out of the fear they might become a threat to this country.
	Do not push them to be radicalised, used by groups like Isis who are out for revenge and thirst for blood.”
	He feels passionately about the need not simply to take urgent, effective action to curtail suspected terrorists, not simply to wash our hands of those who may have become radicalised, and not simply to generalise about who people of this kind are. He believes that we need to understand more about who they are, and why they have become radicalised.
	I met Abubaker Deghayes, the father. I met his solicitor, Gareth Peirce, and I met campaigners from organisations such as Cage UK. All of them have a wealth of experience related to the impact of counter-terrorism legislation, and all of them paid tribute to the difference that deradicalisation programmes can make. I hope to host a parliamentary meeting early in the new year, before the House of Lords debates the Bill, in order to give colleagues an opportunity to hear from a range of experts, including police officers, who are engaged in such programmes in other European Union member states.
	Before I say any more, it might be helpful if I defined my terms. In doing so, I shall refer to a very useful paper published by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which has conducted a comparative evaluation of counter-radicalisation and deradicalisation approaches in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. It describes deradicalisation programmes as those that are
	“generally directed against individuals who have becomeradical with theaim of re­integratingthem into society or at least dissuadingthem from violence.”
	That is notably distinct from programmes such as Prevent, which are concerned more with counter-radicalisation, which the Institute for Strategic Dialogue defines as
	“a package of social, political, legal, educational and economic programmes specificallydesignedtodeter disaffected(andpossibly alreadyradicalized) individuals from crossingtheline and becomingterrorists.”

Hazel Blears: I, too, have read the paper from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Would it be fair to say that a lot of the evidence that has been gathered is about deradicalising people from far-right groups, because the work around political Islamism has not yet been developed to the point at which we would be able to get a lot of useful evidence? We need to do much more work in that area of threat facing us, because the far-right work is not necessarily completely comparable with the other threats we face at the moment.

Caroline Lucas: The right hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair point. Most of the evidence is coming from that direction. I agree that we need more evidence gathering specifically on the Islamist threat, but none the less I think the point I am making remains that we need greater understanding of why people are radicalised.
	I was talking about counter-radicalisation and Prevent, and I wanted to flag up the fact that, as Members will know, Prevent has been criticised for failing properly to engage at the community level and instead making some communities feel singled out and stigmatised. I think that is a lost opportunity and we must redouble our efforts and engage in effective community-led counter-radicalisation programmes, learning from other countries that have done just that.
	Deradicalisation is more relevant to the debate we are having now. I draw Members’ attention, if they are not already aware of them, to programmes in places such as Denmark, where a programme called Back on Track has been operating. Its targets include prison inmates who have been either convicted of terrorism or involved in hate crimes or other extremism-related crimes. The aim of the project is to support inmates through mentoring to become better at handling everyday situations, problems and conflicts. Another key element is to focus on engaging families and social networks in order to offer inmates long-term support when re-entering society. Other Members have already underlined the importance of family and kinship groups.
	Back on Track has been running alongside another programme, De-radicalisation-Targeted Intervention, which uses mentoring to support individuals who are trying to leave an extremist group. It is focused particularly on being proactive by reaching out to potential beneficiaries and motivating them to participate. A key objective is helping them to find constructive social alternatives to extremist groups.
	Germany has what is known as the Hayat programme, which has been developed to reflect the premise that the minds of young Europeans intent on practising jihad in Syria or Iraq are perhaps less likely to be changed by politicians’ threats or force of law than by their next of kin. One of Hayat’s family counsellors says:
	“Families are the closest social community that most radicalised young Muslims have. It is the perfect living counter-narrative to radical Islam.”
	Since 2012 Hayat has operated a national helpline, which families who are concerned about their sons or daughters drifting into radical Islam can contact.

Mark Field: While I agree that there is much we can learn from what happens in other nations, does the hon. Lady agree that significant work already goes on in our communities, both with the Prevent programme and without it, which takes the lead and which also co-operates with other nations along the lines she is outlining? On the deradicalisation programme, it strikes me that we have to deal with incredibly difficult issues, but I am confident that a lot of thinking is going into this and there is a lot of co-operation between nations, particularly on the very large number of returning jihadis, which is an even bigger problem, in numbers terms at least, in places such as France and Germany than it is in the UK today.

Caroline Lucas: I do not doubt that much work is going on, some of it very good, but I wanted to pinpoint the experience of young people who have got caught up in some of these things. They have gone to places such as Syria and they want to come back, and at the moment it does not feel that there is a path that is particularly encouraging to them to come back. We talked about this yesterday when we discussed the temporary exclusion orders and whether or not that means someone will go straight into criminal proceedings.
	What I would like us to do is look at some of the models in places such as Germany and Denmark, so that when we have someone who is trying to come back and who is turning their back on what they have done, we do not automatically put them through the criminal process but instead devote a lot more time to trying to see how they can be reintegrated. Obviously one would not do that at the expense of wider security issues, but neither do I think that this is a soft approach. I think, in fact, that it could be a way of making us safer in the long run if some of these deradicalisation programmes work. There is a bit of a gap there, and it is an area that I would like us in this country and our Government to be looking at in more detail.

Mark Field: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are some 20 weeks away from a general election and so, unfortunately, the rhetoric about throwing away the keys will inevitably come from party leaders? However, in their heart of hearts they all recognise the importance of looking at this issue in a much more holistic way. I agree with her that it is in the interests of our intelligence services, apart from anything else, that we make common cause to find out about some of these returnees, as they can perhaps co-operate. I suspect that work of that order is going on, as well as the range of programmes to which she refers. In many ways, it is understandable that tabloid rhetoric has its part to play, but our authorities are bringing to bear a much more sophisticated, nuanced approach to this very real problem.

Caroline Lucas: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would not be as relaxed about the tabloid rhetoric as he is. I certainly do not think we should be stoking it in this Chamber because that sends out a message that is heard out there and makes young people believe it is too dangerous to come back. I am aware of people from my constituency and the wider area where I live who are out in places such as Syria and do want to come back, but are terrified of doing so. It is not in the interests of wider security that we just send out the same messages; we have to have different messages and learn from countries that seem to be doing a better job on some of this work than we are.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady was on to a powerful theme when she was describing some of the other initiatives we witness across Europe. I am familiar with some of the programmes in Germany and Denmark that she mentioned. Would she say that the major difference in character is that Prevent seems to be a more prescriptive solution whereas the initiatives in Europe are much more organic and involve the community more? The language of “combat”, “taking on” and “fighting” seems to be the prevalent language in Prevent. If the Minister and the Secretary of State were to look a
	little more carefully at the European models, they might find a more useful model of working within our communities.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He rightly says that in this country it feels very much more as though deradicalisation is done to people, rather than being something people get involved in, and therefore own and are more likely to be part of.

James Brokenshire: In the light of the previous intervention, I should make it absolutely clear that Prevent is a locally based approach. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), in her initial contribution, highlighted clearly the excellent local work done in a number of different areas, including by civil society groups. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government continue to look at other programmes from various parts of Europe—indeed, I was in Scandinavia last year visiting various Governments for that very purpose.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the Minister for that. If it is all as happily happening as he suggests, I hope that he will be able to agree to new clause 12. I suspect it is not happening, which is why young people in my community tell me that they feel that the Prevent approach is stigmatising. That is not a criticism of the local people in my constituency who are doing their very best to deal with what they themselves feel is not a terribly helpful approach. It is a criticism that echoes what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) just said about the feeling that the approach targets people in a very stigmatising way, as though they are the problem, rather than asking the wider questions we have a responsibility to ask about how and why people become radicalised. If we ask those questions, we might find ourselves rather more responsible for some of the answers, in the broadest sense, than if we simply assume that this is somehow outside our control and our responsibility.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Hazel Blears: rose—

Caroline Lucas: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who had a difficult choice to make. I am curious about why she did not look a little closer to home at the best practice that has worked in Northern Ireland. We have former republican terrorists who have committed the most appalling terrorist crimes and former loyalist terrorists who have committed equally appalling crimes, including just murdering Catholics because they were Catholics, who have turned their back on violence and turned young people away from the path of violence in Northern Ireland. She has cited what has happened in Denmark and Germany, but I say to her that good lessons could be learned from experience in Northern Ireland.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for a well made contribution. She was perfectly right to make such a point, and it does not undermine the position that I am advancing. Indeed, I would love to learn more about the experience she describes. I suspect that the
	success of the scheme was not achieved by making people feel excluded or terrified about coming forward. I worry about the context in which we are having this discussion, which is the proposed legislation that the Government are setting out right now.

Hazel Blears: I echo the points made by the hon. Lady, but I just wonder what projects she has visited. Some of the work I have seen has been about not stigmatising individuals but putting on drama in schools to enable these issues to be brought to the surface and then challenged in quite provocative ways. There is training for teachers and some community-based projects. She is making the point that I made to the Minister, which is that I want to see more of that kind of work, because it is about enabling us to build community resilience rather than targeting individuals. There is some excellent practice in this country, as well as in Ireland.

Caroline Lucas: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. I have seen and been part of some of those extraordinary community engagement processes. The drama in particular has a huge role to play. I come back now to the wider context. I am simply reporting to her what young people have said to me, which is that when they hear the Prevent programme being talked about and the kind of language and rhetoric that gets used when we are talking in the abstract it feels to them as if this is something that is stigmatising and off-putting. They feel as if they are the problem. The programme does not seem to be the most conducive thing to engage them in, even though when they get to it, they might find that it is something as constructive and as community based as she describes.

Julian Lewis: There is a vast difference between stigmatising individuals who are at risk, which is not proposed, and stigmatising a barbaric ideology, because the idea is to save individuals from being sucked into the ideology.

Caroline Lucas: I think that I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. There are problems with the way he describes things in a black and white way. Of course I would be the first to say that we are seeing barbaric acts, which are part of a barbaric ideology. But to continue to use that language is not helpful when we are talking about young people. There are young people who have got mixed up in this in an ignorant way. I am not trying to excuse what they have done; I am just trying to understand it. If we think in terms of barbaric ideologies, then that suggests someone who has spent an awful lot of time becoming involved in this, understanding it, knowing it and thinking of themselves as ideologues rather than as people who may have mental health problems, who may be excluded, who have faced massive racism in their lives and who have ended up in a very unfortunate position for a huge number of reasons that are not necessarily helpfully described when we talk about a barbaric ideology.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Lady is very kind. This will be my last intervention, so she has an open goal after that. I simply say that nobody hesitates to describe Nazi ideology and communist ideology in terms of their barbaric nature. If we are to succeed in saving people from being
	drawn into this form of barbarism, we have to get it into the same category, because, fundamentally, it comes from the same drawer of ideologies.

Caroline Lucas: I have no problem with talking about barbaric ideology or about actions that are barbaric, but if we frame the whole debate in those terms, we do not get any closer to being able to understand why some young people are getting more and more attracted to going out to take part in wars in Syria. We certainly do not get any closer to understanding how we can get them back safely and deradicalise them. All of us share that as the overriding priority. What we want to do is to keep our country safe by trying to ensure that people who get involved in this kind of activity are prevented from doing it in the first place and by deradicalising them if and when it happens. I am simply arguing about the best way to reach out to those people. I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman is describing is the best way to do so.

Mark Durkan: The situation in Northern Ireland has already been mentioned, where the emphasis has been on a process of inclusion, rather than one of labelling and exclusion. Indeed, there is a veritable infrastructure for inclusion through EU moneys and other mechanisms that were used precisely to work at community level to ensure that people had a real stake in new beginnings and new processes. Attempts to exclude through broadcasting bans, vetting of community funding and all the rest of it did not work. We have to take people at the level they are at so that they can move forward while thinking that they retain the integrity of their outlook.

Caroline Lucas: I definitely thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which is immensely helpful and really sets us back on track to where I think we are best placed to move forward on the issue.
	I will begin to draw my comments to a close, because I have spoken for longer than I had originally anticipated. In conclusion, analysis of successful deradicalisation programmes suggests that the most effective identify how individuals become radicalised, rather than simply labelling them. They examine whether and how the process can be reversed, and how Government-led initiatives can help ensure that committed terrorists avoid illegal activity after they are released from custody. We know what some of the ingredients are; we have talked about the importance of family members, education, vocational training and religious dialogue, for example.
	Religious engagement is one of the more contentious elements of deradicalisation programmes. It may be effective in reforming radical Islamists, but primarily because it provides an environment that is conducive to behavioural reform, not necessarily because it encourages ideological reform. Some of the reports from the Council on Foreign Relations seem to suggest that focusing on rehabilitation, rather than ideological change, is particularly sensible if it is acknowledged that committed ideologues might not give up their beliefs but might just change their behaviour, which I think is what we want them to do.
	These programmes are not about being soft on terrorism. On the contrary, as I said at the beginning, they are an add-on to, rather than a substitute for, good counter-terrorism laws. I hope that Members will join me in
	calling for a review of deradicalisation and counter-radicalisation best practice in order that we might equip ourselves as effectively as possible for the substantial challenges we face from jihadi and other terrorist groups.

Pete Wishart: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir—the more Scottish National party Members we see in such positions, the better—and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She made several pertinent points, particularly on the need to look at experiences from across Europe, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response. It struck me that there is an attempt to look at some of the measures that other countries are adopting to try to tackle this serious issue, but there are also different things being done across the United Kingdom. I wish to focus my remarks on what we are trying to achieve in Scotland.
	We are absolutely committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies and other bodies have all the tools they need to tackle terrorism effectively. We take that particularly seriously in Scotland. We believe that we have robust but different measures in place to tackle these issues. We have massive concerns about what is proposed in the Bill, particularly in part 5. We are concerned that it might cut across some of the initiatives in our Prevent strategy.
	It is natural that in Scotland we look at things differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. We face a different range of issues, we have smaller ethnic minority communities, and we have not had the same sort of tensions within our communities, so obviously we look at things differently. I like to think that we therefore look at things a little more holistically, and certainly more holistically that a Conservative-led Government would, or even—if I may be so brave as to say it—than a new Labour Government would.
	Our Scottish Prevent strategy shares the same objectives as Prevent across the rest of the United Kingdom, but it differs in some pretty serious and significant ways, particularly in how it is delivered. I think that it does all it can to reflect our Scottish context. Our approach uses Prevent though a safeguarding lens, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, on community cohesion, on participative democracy and on making sure that it is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities. The Scottish Government’s Prevent strategy for tackling violent extremism works with and through key sectors, including higher and further education, the NHS, the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent delivery also benefits from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and the strength of the relationship between our Muslim communities and the police service.
	We sometimes ignore the cultural context, but it is important. One of the most impressive features of Scotland’s Asian community is its willingness and eagerness to adopt what is seen as Scottish identity. We have what is called the bhangra and bagpipe culture. Particularly in Glasgow, where we have a large Muslim community, it is striking how eager the community is to take on board some of the central, defining features of Scottish culture and to get involved. We saw that during the referendum campaign, as Mr Weir in particular knows. One of the fastest growing groups in the movement was Scottish
	Asians for independence, because there was a natural affinity with what we were trying to achieve as a nation, and there was something about what we were trying to do in order to transform society that proved attractive to many people who had come from countries such as India and Pakistan, which had in their own way secured their independence from the United Kingdom at some time in history.
	This feature in Scotland differs significantly from the rest of the United Kingdom. Efforts have been made by the Scottish Government, Ministers and colleagues to try to ensure that the cultural context is taken into account when we approach issues such as radicalisation. I am sure the Minister has seen on his trips to Scotland how the Muslim community, particularly from south Asia, has been integrated in our society and our community. We should all be impressed by that, and perhaps the Minister can learn from our experience.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a powerful point about how we start to approach these matters and look at some of the community dimensions. We cannot be prescriptive. We cannot talk down to communities or expect them to respond to our stimuli, our suggestions and our objectives. I shall not dwell on what my hon. Friend said, but we have to work with communities. This process has to be organic, a conversation within communities and groups, to ensure that we come to the right conclusions.
	The one thing that I want to add to what my hon. Friend said is that we must also look at the external environment. We have to try to understand what motivates people to get involved in what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) rightly describes as barbaric activity. There is one thing that this Government have never done, and it surprises me how little work has been done on it. I encourage the Minister to look more closely at it: there is very little profiling of people who have gone out to the middle east to get involved in such activity. We do not have a sense of the pull factors, the reasons why people go there and get involved, because we do not ask them. We are too busy locking people up and all the other things that go with that.
	We spend very little time trying to understand what it is that drags people to engage in such awful behaviour and activity, and I suspect that our reluctance to do that has much to do with the results that we are likely to find. When we see people being interviewed about their involvement in such activity, they are not people who would concern the Government on a day-to-day basis—people who have just immigrated from Pakistan or the middle east. They tend to be second or third generation who have been here for a long time. The ideology has not been brought here; it is an ideology that has emerged and grown within our communities.
	When we listen to people being interviewed by broadcasters trying to understand what informs the way they behave, they all seem to be pretty respectable, cultured, almost middle class, standard citizens of the United Kingdom. They do not seem to conform to the traditional vision, if I may say that, of jihadists, and the caricatures that develop around that. We fail to get that right, to understand and to do the necessary work to profile—

Hazel Blears: I have some sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is developing on working with communities, which is the approach that I have always wanted to emphasise. Does he accept that one of the
	reasons that many of the people who are born and brought up in this country and have lived here for very many years then decide to go to Syria, or to create a terrorist plot here in Britain, is that they have been influenced by an ideology based on hatred and a complete rejection of other people unless they agree 100% with their very narrow world view? We have debated whether we use the word “combating” or “countering” in relation to this ideology, which has its roots in Salafi thinking. It is about a violent version of Islam that supposedly justifies this kind of terrorist activity. There is quite a lot of research on this, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of it.

Pete Wishart: Indeed. The right hon. Lady is partly correct. There is something that draws people in, but our failure to understand some of the motivations and pull factors is a fault that we have.
	I do not want to labour my next point because I had an exchange about it with the hon. Member for New Forest East on Second Reading. It is that people feel such a sense of injustice and frustration about not being able to use the traditional, normal political process to exert some sort of change that they are driven to get involved in these activities. People are not born genetically programmed to become jihadists and terrorists: something fundamental and significant happens during their journey that influences them and makes them get involved. We fail to understand that.
	We also fail to take responsibility for what we may have done in setting the external stimuli in this regard. For example, we fail to acknowledge the disaster that was the Iraq war and how that cause became a recruiting sergeant for a generation of young Muslims who, with their perverted sense of justice, saw no alternative but to get involved in these terrorist activities. We do not even need to debate this: we can see the line going all the way back to when it started. Yes, there were issues before Iraq and before some of the other difficulties in the middle east, particularly in relation to Palestine, but it is when we get to the invasion of Iraq that we can see the exponential growth in these activities.
	We have to take responsibility for that. We have to acknowledge that the decisions we have made and the environment we have created perhaps give rise to some of the massive frustrations that people have. People are not born predisposed to be terrorists, to be jihadists, to be the most barbaric type of murderers. Something happens along the way and a frustration develops. Unless we address our responsibility for creating these conditions, we fail.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this on previous occasions. Does he think that ISIS is killing Yazidis and Christians because it has a grievance about British foreign policy?

Pete Wishart: No, of course not. If I may put it ever so gently to the right hon. Lady, that question is not worthy of her. There are conflicts right across the middle east that we fail to understand but only condemn, but in some way we are the major power in all this. We are the interveners in these types of activities, and we therefore have responsibilities in that regard. Of course this does not reflect UK foreign policy, other than perhaps at the margins.

Mike Hancock: I apologise for not being here when the hon. Gentleman started his speech. I agree that the Iraq war was undoubtedly the tipping point, and most people now recognise that it was a mistake, but that has not stopped young Muslim men becoming radicalised. All the baring of our chests and saying “We were wrong and it was a terrible thing to do” has not changed what has happened by one iota.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course it has not changed behaviour, but we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge this issue. It is a flaw that runs all the way through a lot of the programmes to counter, or combat, radicalisation that we embark on. Unless we understand the external stimuli and the environment that were created, I am afraid we will not have any great success in these things.
	There is another factor that informs this and it is some of the debates that we have in this House. If I were a young Muslim listening to some of the poisonous debate about immigration that takes place nowadays, I do not know what I would make of being told, “You’ve got to stay away from here; you’ve got to be kicked out, or sent back, or whatever”—all the inflammatory language that this House hears almost on a day-to-day basis when we debate these things. We have got to be careful, for goodness’ sake. We cannot just believe that it will all of a sudden be reasonably accepted and adopted, and that nobody will mind that this language is employed when such debates take place. Again, let us just be careful about what we do to contribute to the environment that has been created or the conditions leading to such frustration.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right to warn of the dangers of hon. Members helping to feed the very things they say they want to fight. If there are those who are out to sow the seeds of radicalism, extremism, cynicism and alienation, people should take care not to propagate those seeds by measures that, in relation to international policy, only feed the cynicism of those who see them as double standards, or in relation to this country, even propose to create a twilight zone around the very concept of citizenship. How does that help to counter the very disillusionment of which the hon. Gentleman speaks?

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is right to say that we must see this in the round. That is one of the reasons why I have difficulties with what is suggested in the Bill. I will not support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), as I think she knows, because I just do not like this type of language. It does not really address the difficulties we face and the things we have to take on. In looking at anti-radicalisation or ensuring that our communities are resilient in fighting against such messages, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) set out so eloquently, we must work holistically—in the round—and ensure that that is combined and merged with all other community issues that would help us.
	We are trying to work towards that in Scotland. Historically, we have taken that approach. We have had responsibility for the Prevent programme for eight to 10 years, and I believe that we have made real progress.
	With our distinct legal system, we have our own means of doing this sort of thing, and we are making great attempts and efforts to do so. We just take a different view of such things: we have a different type of community and a different approach to the issues that have emerged during the past few years.
	The Minister for Security and Immigration is now deep in conversation, but I hope he will allow us to pursue our agenda on such matters. Scottish public bodies that were initially listed in schedules 3 and 4 are no longer included, so I hope that the Minister, when he finishes his conversation, might be of a mind to allow us to make our own progress when it comes to such things. The Minister is now back with us. I was saying—I know he missed this—that Scotland has been excluded from the schedules of public bodies. I know that there have been conversations with the relevant Scottish Minister, and that the Minister for Security and Immigration understands that we have our own particular agenda for this sort of thing.
	I hope that in time—perhaps amendments tabled during the remaining stages of the Bill will help him to come to this conclusion—we can have our own strategy without the combat and the fighting language that we do not like. We do not think it works or believe that it adds much to achieving the objective that we in this place all want, which is to make our communities safer and resilient enough to ensure that we get the right type of result and response. I hope that the Minister will be open to further suggestions that will exclude Scotland from part 5 and allow us to pursue our own agenda. We do not like some of the language, and we do not believe it works. Perhaps even in his response, he could satisfy me and my colleagues that we will be allowed to pursue our own agenda and do this our own way.

Mike Hancock: I come to this debate with a great deal of sadness about what has happened in my own city. Six young men went out, of whom four are now dead, and one returned to the UK and is now starting a very lengthy prison sentence.
	One of the saddest moments in my 45 years’ experience of politics was reading the letter that one of the lads wrote to his parents and left for them when he went to Syria. His parents sat in front of me in the office not saying that they wanted us to fight back, but really begging for something to happen or for someone to take the initiative. They could not understand how this very well educated young man, who was at university—he had a glittering career before him—could walk away from university and go to Syria without discussing it with anyone, not his local peer group or, most importantly, his parents. The last words of the letter were, “Don’t worry about what’s going to happen to me when I come back because I have no intention of coming back.” His parents read into that that he had every intention of fighting, wherever it took him. How sad it was for his mother to read that letter.
	We have tried desperately hard with the community in Portsmouth. We have a large Bangladeshi community and four mosques. Portsmouth has a great, integrated society. Everyone was horrified that our city was highlighted in the way that it was and nobody could understand how it had happened. The imams in the mosques did
	not know, the people who run the madrassah did not know and the extended families of the young men did not know how it came about that these young men were radicalised in such a way that they were prepared to walk away from everything they had in front of them, put their lives on the line and even put it in writing that they did not believe they would be coming back. Some sort of fightback is required on the part of all of us who care about the young men and women who have done that.
	I do not share the view that giving disproportionately long prison sentences to people who come back will help the situation. I do not know whether other Members have spoken to young Muslim boys who have been in prison or whether they understand the pressure that those boys are put under in prison by much older members of the faith and the other issues that they raise. We need to find a mechanism to sort that out. I am in favour of the various things that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) exposed so eloquently. The Bradford example is a fine one. However, none of them offers an easy solution to finding the right role model who can put the alternative case to these young men and women, and do so in the right place.
	Nobody has yet suggested that there is an easy way out of this situation. I have first-hand experience of the pitiful state of the families who are devastated when their young sons or daughters are killed and taken away from them. Surely the Bill goes some way towards starting the process that the mother who sat opposite me in my surgery called for when she said, “For goodness’ sake, Mike, we’ve got to find a way of preventing this. I’ve got an 11-year-old son and I’m worried about what will happen to him. What is he thinking? How will it affect him and his peer group when they talk about their brothers who have been killed fighting in a war in Syria?” It is no good just saying that they were mistaken and that they did not believe in what they were going to do. They were believers in what they were going to do and they knew the risks they were taking. They were so certain about it that they were still prepared to do it. We ignore that at our peril.
	Again, I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles that we have to start lower down the age range. We need to find a mechanism for very young people.

Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate; I was in Westminster Hall. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is an issue with the general narrative in our society and in our media, where there is a high degree of Islamophobia, with throwaway comments being made on television programmes the whole time? It is regrettable, and on some people—on a very small minority, maybe—it has the beginnings of a very bad effect.

Mike Hancock: It is more than regrettable that that has happened—it is despicable. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that it must have an effect on people. It would have an effect on me if I had that sort of problem. I know what it is like to have abuse thrown at me. I know what effect it had on me. Goodness knows how other people feel when they have abuse thrown at them day after day. I hate the thought that people in my constituency
	have stooped to cutting off a pig’s head and sticking it on the gatepost of an Islamic school. What sort of message does it send to young children going to school if there is a dead pig’s head stuck on a railing outside that school? It is appalling, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must combat such things and be more realistic about allowing certain comments to go unchallenged. It is important that that message comes over loud and clear in debates such as this.
	I hope that the Bill gets the support it deserves and that the promised resources are forthcoming and go to the right places. All of us involved in this issue for one reason or another must work hard with our communities and, most important, with those who are prepared to step out and say the right things, and encourage young men and women to think that there is an alternative to what they believe in. However, it is no good suggesting for one minute that those young men and women do not believe 100% in what they are doing at the present time, because they certainly do.

Paul Blomfield: I will make a couple of brief points on amendment 20 and the impact of clauses 21 to 27 on universities, and I do so as someone who represents Sheffield’s two universities and more students than any other Member of the House.
	Some 28 years ago, in my previous career in the university sector, I remember preparing a draft code of practice on freedom of speech in universities, to entrench further something that has traditionally always had a strong place in our higher education sector. I did so in response to the Education (No.2) Act 1986, introduced by the then Conservative Government, which sought to ensure that universities maintained that commitment to freedom of speech.
	As I am sure the Minister is aware, that Act imposed a duty on universities to ensure that the use of their premises is
	“not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with the beliefs or views of that individual”.
	Universities have always taken this issue seriously and sought to fulfil their legal responsibilities, but it is not clear how that provision sits alongside new responsibilities in the Bill. What potential legal quagmire might a university find itself in if, for example, an action is brought by a third party to challenge a decision made under the provisions of this Bill, on the basis of the university’s responsibilities in the 1986 Act? That issue needs clarity so that we do not find ourselves in a very big mess.
	My second point relates to the general, sweeping nature of the Government’s new powers in the Bill, and the potential for direct intervention in the governance of universities that it establishes. Amendment 20 deals with that issue, but the House would be making a big mistake to allow such a measure to proceed without ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny. I understand that universities have been reassured by the Home Office that guidance is being prepared, but our difficulty is that we have not yet seen that guidance and do not know how the Government intend to proceed. It seems a fairly fundamental principle that Parliament ought to be able to scrutinise the initial guidance, and any subsequent guidance that the Government might issue should they feel that universities are not complying with requirements in the Bill. Amendment 20, which I hope the Minister is
	able to embrace, seeks to strengthen confidence in what the Government are trying to achieve by ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny of the process, and that links to some of the imprecision in the language and description of terms in the Bill.
	The Minister will be familiar with a recent case, which has been well documented in the press, where Christchurch university in Canterbury found itself in conflict with the police over an unwillingness to provide information on its students in relation to a fracking debate. There is a concern within the university sector that the shifting balance of relationships that might be implicit in the Bill could add to the pressure on universities to co-operate or provide information on a much wider range of issues than is the Government’s intention. I recognise that that is not what the Government are seeking to do. The importance of ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny in the guidance that might be issued is something we should endorse today.

Diana Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for opening the debate and making a compelling case, along with the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for why the amendments are important to today’s debate on Prevent. I agree with her sentiments relating to the appalling events in Sydney. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of the people who died. We stand in solidarity with the Australian people. We stand, too, with the people of Pakistan, where dreadful events have unfolded this morning, with hundreds murdered.
	Part 5 introduces a series of obligations on public bodies and local authorities to deliver the Prevent agenda. I hope the Minister will respond to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on part 5 not covering Northern Ireland, and to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in relation to Prevent in Scotland.
	Most of the Bill is taken up with tough measures to tackle those who are thought to be involved in terrorism, but part 5 deals with preventing people becoming involved in the first place. The previous Labour Government introduced the Prevent agenda and we remain absolutely committed to supporting and strengthening it where necessary. However, before we look in detail at the measures to strengthen the delivery of the Prevent programme, I want to point out two areas where I think there are gaps in the Bill. First, there needs to be a much clearer commitment from central Government to do more to support and facilitate the Prevent agenda. A lot of additional duties are being put on to local authorities and public bodies, but there is more of a role for central Government to support them in fulfilling that duty. Secondly, in the past four years there has been some confusion in relation to the Prevent agenda and the roles of the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government. It would be helpful if the Minister is able to enlighten us on the problems that have arisen due the confused situation relating to Prevent.
	We all agree that Prevent should be about local delivery, but, as I said, there have been some problems because of a mixed approach by central Government.
	For example, it was a Government decision early on to reduce the number of priority areas for Prevent from 90 to 23. The Government then realised that leaving areas such as Greenwich out of the priority areas was a mistake, so a number of local authority areas had their funding reinstated. Even within those priority areas, however, I do not think the Government have been paying enough attention to whether the Prevent agenda is being successfully delivered with evaluations. Only four of the 30 priority areas provided evaluations to the office for security and counter-terrorism last year. That is obviously of concern when public money is being spent, because we want to know that it is being used effectively.
	There has also been a marked decline in funding streams for Prevent: funding is down from £17 million to £1 million a year. Some of that has been part of a conscious decision about reallocating funding, but questions are raised by the fact that, while £5.1 million has been allocated every year for local delivery, over the past six years more than 60% of it has gone unclaimed by local authorities.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making a very good point about funding. Does she agree that it is also important, from the point of view of a public message, that we place a strong emphasis on preventing extreme right-wing racism in our society, and on combating it as vigorously as we combat any other kind of issue?

Diana Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point as part of the debate about Prevent spending on combating extremism across the piece.
	On the Government’s record with Prevent, it is striking that, while overall spending has gone up—it reached £40 million last year—spending on local delivery accounts for barely 10% of the total. Will the Minister confirm whether those figures are correct?
	Local authorities are not the only bodies captured by the new duty. Universities will also be covered and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) has just addressed some of the concerns relating to the university sector. However, just because universities are included in this particular duty does not mean that they have not previously been included. My hon. Friend referred to work that was done many years ago to tackle these issues. A significant section of the Prevent agenda is devoted to universities, which are asked to agree Prevent action plans with local police forces. I have repeatedly asked parliamentary questions to find out how many universities actually have a Prevent plan in place, but the Government have repeatedly refused to provide an answer. I do not understand why, because it is not a matter of national security: the information requested is simply a number. Do the Government refuse to answer the question because they do not actually know how many universities have agreed a plan or because they are not willing to tell Parliament? Why are we not allowed to know?
	The Bill also extends obligations on schools, which were also not excluded from the previous Prevent agenda. A significant thread of Prevent has always been aimed at schools. Indeed, the 2011 Prevent review identifies a significant number of threats to schools and suggests
	measures to counter those threats. Given the conclusions of Oftsted’s investigations into Birmingham and Tower Hamlets, the 2011 review seems remarkably prescient. It identified a series of risks facing schools, including that posed by people with radical beliefs who were attempting to obtain positions in schools—that is, on school governing bodies.
	The review also identified some challenges that needed immediate action in schools. For example, 70% of schools felt that they needed more training and information to build resilience to radicalisation. To address those issues, the Department for Education committed to a nine-point plan of action to prevent radicalisation in schools. However, it has provided no evidence on the delivery of that plan. I have asked it numerous questions—both written and on the Floor of the House—about the overall implementation of the Prevent agenda and the specific commitments contained in the 2011 review, but I have received no evidence in response to my inquiries. I have asked the Department to provide a general update on its work delivering the Prevent agenda, but to no avail. Will the Minister tell the House whether the measures in the Bill that relate to schools are a response to the failure of the DFE to deliver on previous commitments?
	Also missing from the Bill are measures to address radicalisation outside public institutions. Local councils can of course try to counter radicalisation in public places and public bodies, and universities can try to counter it on campus, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said, much more work needs to be done on broadcasting and the internet industries to reduce hate speech and extremism arriving directly into homes through social media and satellite television.
	Last week, the Prime Minister announced international efforts in partnership with industry to tackle online child abuse. We all welcome those. However, equivalent measures on terrorist propaganda are in their infancy. Although the Internet Watch Foundation has forged vital links with industry to actively prohibit the dissemination of abusive images, my understanding is that the Home Office’s counter terrorism internet referral unit has never received a referral from a communications service provider about extremist conduct. I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is correct. Although we welcome the measures in the Bill, which are about the Government telling other authorities to do more, we should remember that there are areas where the Government themselves could do more and have failed to deliver so far.
	I turn now to the specific provisions in the Bill, starting with clause 21, which puts a general duty on various public bodies to tackle terrorism; the bodies are numerous and are listed in schedule 3. The clause is complemented by the provisions in clause 24, which allow the Secretary of State to introduce guidance on how authorities should implement their obligations. The Secretary of State’s power in this area is strengthened still further by the provisions in clause 25 for her to direct public bodies to act in a certain way.
	Parliament’s scrutiny of the Bill has been constrained, once again, because we are debating the principle without getting to see the specifics. It is extremely unfortunate that the Government have not published draft guidance to aid our considerations. We have no problem with the principle of a general duty to prevent terrorism, but
	that could mean a number of things. It is therefore essential that we have access to the guidance, so that we can debate what is in it.
	For that reason, the Opposition have tabled amendment 19, which would ensure that the Government must use their powers to issue guidance, and amendment 20, which would ensure that Parliament could scrutinise the guidance under the affirmative procedure. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on those amendments, but if he is not able to accept amendment 20 I will test the opinion of the House on giving Parliament an opportunity specifically to debate the guidance.
	The Secretary of State could introduce guidance of potentially enormous scope, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said, could have a bearing on free speech and academic freedoms—I would go so far as to say it could even affect patient-doctor relationships—yet at the moment Parliament would have no role in debating that guidance. My understanding is that only one set of guidance will be issued. It will apply to the numerous bodies set out in schedule 3, and will therefore have to apply in disparate settings. It is important that the implications of the guidance are discussed fully in Parliament to allow potential implications for different sectors to be raised and debated fully.
	The guidance will also be important in ensuring that the policies implemented are both efficient and effective. Thousands of similar bodies will be implementing policies under clause 21, and it is important that they do not all start from scratch in deciding how to comply with their new duty. The issues that bodies will need to address are complex and disparate, ranging from the far right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) just mentioned, to the intra-religious issues that have been discussed this afternoon. The Home Office needs to support organisations in dealing with those disparate issues, particularly intra-religious conflicts of the sort we see in Syria, which are the driving force behind the rise of ISIL. They are particularly difficult to address, and public bodies need full support in tackling them.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles talked earlier about the counter-narrative issue and the Muslim community is trying very hard to combat sectarianism with a narrative of peace and unity. Public bodies should be supporting community bodies in doing that, but they need guidance on how best to achieve it. That is why the Opposition think we must have guidance and that it must be properly and effectively scrutinised. I hope that the Minister will therefore agree to accept amendments 19 and 20.
	I want now to turn to the cost of the Government’s approach. The impact assessment presumes that a local authority with high risk will face costs of about £40,000. It also estimates that about a third of local authorities will be in this high-risk category—that is, just about the 90 local authorities that Labour deemed priority areas when Prevent was introduced. As I said at the outset, that number reduced when the Government had their review in 2011. I want to be clear whether the Minister is now acknowledging that the 2011 Prevent review got the numbers wrong and that 90 is nearer the mark for the number of areas at high risk. The £40,000 compliance cost is about the level of support provided to those
	areas under Labour, so will the Minister confirm whether the Home Office will meet those costs? Or is it a cost that local authorities will have to meet?
	I have spoken about the problems in the Department for Education in delivering on the Prevent agenda and I want to talk a little about the cost to schools. The impact assessment now seems to put the onus on schools to bring in people to help with training and says that that will cost £62 for every 20 people trained. That seems a rather low figure to me. For example, if a school in my constituency wanted to bring in an individual to provide Prevent training in Hull it would probably need to bring in someone from an area with expertise—let us say Leeds. That person would have to travel for an hour from Leeds and then deliver the programme. A cost of £62 to cover the travel costs, travel time, the presentation and the preparation seems very low for 20 people. Will the Minister explain how he reached the figures for the additional costs that will be put on the police, prisons and the probation service?
	Schedule 3 lists the bodies to which the duty will apply and clause 22 gives the Secretary of State powers to add to that list. Schedule 3 is extensive and includes health bodies, education bodies, prisons and probation services. I note that local NHS trusts and foundation trusts are included but there is no mention of the clinical commissioning groups. Why has no duty been put on the commissioners of services to fulfil their duties on Prevent? I also note that there is no mention of general practitioners, or some of the social enterprises that have been set up to deliver NHS services, such as community health partnerships. We know that more privatisation is coming into the NHS, so will the Minister explain how private health care providers will be covered by this provision? Similarly, the Government are in the process of privatising probation services, so will the Minister explain how G4S, Serco and others will be covered by this duty?
	In theory, the Government can extend the duty to other bodies as they see fit subject to the limitations of clause 22(2), which lists legislative and judicial bodies as exempt, as are the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service. Why cannot the intelligence bodies be included in a duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism? It seems the type of provision destined to fuel conspiracy theorists.
	More importantly, I want to turn to the implications of clauses 21 and 22 for the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. While counter-terrorism is a retained power, clause 21 will cover a number of bodies that are otherwise entirely accountable to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. The Opposition welcome provisions in clauses 23 and 24 that would demand consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but can the Minister confirm that, regardless of the specific set-ups in Scotland and Wales, devolved bodies will be covered by the same guidance as English bodies? It is noticeable that no Scottish institution is included in schedule 3. Presumably that is because consultation with the Scottish authorities has not yet concluded. Is the Minister expecting, or intending, to add to schedule 3 while the Bill is going through the remaining stages?

Pete Wishart: I presume from her comments that the hon. Lady does not want Scotland included in this. I am sure that she has heard about the different, more holistic
	approach that we have. Could she help us to persuade the Minister to allow us to do our thing uninterrupted by what has been proposed in the Bill?

Diana Johnson: We are at the Committee stage of the Bill, looking specifically at the Government’s provisions. Scotland is covered by Prevent. I am concerned that within schedule 3, which lists the bodies that are covered by the duty, there is nothing from Scotland. That worries me. I want to hear from the Minister why that is and what discussions are being held. As the rest of the Bill applies, I assume that there is a gap that needs to be filled.
	On Northern Ireland, when the Government introduced the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, they neglected to consult the Northern Ireland Executive. The result is that, after four years, the National Crime Agency still does not have a remit to work in Northern Ireland. I am concerned that we could end up with a similar situation with Prevent and the agenda in Scotland.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady but I just want to correct a tiny detail. The National Crime Agency’s full remit does not extend to Northern Ireland because Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party refused to allow that. It is not about consultation with the rest of the parties or with the Northern Ireland Executive; they all want it. The people of Northern Ireland want it, but two parties are holding the rest of us hostage, so to speak.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment and for putting the record straight.
	Although clause 38 is not covered by this group, I want to refer to it as it confers upon the Secretary of State the power to make amendments to any piece of legislation that interferes with the operations of the Bill, including Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. If I have read this correctly, if the Home Secretary thinks, for example, that the setting up of a new type of school in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament is affecting not just the implementation of clause 21 but the specific policies provided for under clause 24, she can change the devolved legislation on its operation. She can even do that without consulting the relevant Government, which is why I have tabled amendment 18, which we will discuss in the next group.
	Similar issues exist with the Channel programme. It would be placed on a statutory footing alongside the rest of Prevent. As with Prevent, this is a policy area of enormous importance and the Opposition support efforts to strengthen it. Once again, however, the Government are putting obligations on local authorities without ensuring that there are provisions to make sure that they are fully supported by central Government. Clause 28 provides for the creation of local assessment and support panels in every local authority. According to clause 33, this includes county councils, district councils and unitary authorities in England and Wales. Again it seems that the Government have not yet reached agreement with the Scottish Government on how this would be implemented in Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point. In addition, the legislation is not clear on which local authorities are meant to have a
	panel when there are multiple tiers of local government. Does the responsibility rest with district or county councils? What happens where there are unitary authorities and district councils? Has this yet been decided and thought through? The impact assessment says that local authorities will be able to combine to create support panels, but can the Minister explain why that is not provided for in the Bill?
	Many panels should already exist and comply with the current guidance provided by the Home Office. Will the Minister tell the Committee how many councils have created these boards and what assessment has been made of their operation? What evidence led the Government to decide that the current system was not working? I have asked parliamentary questions about this in the past, but the Government have refused to give details or even to confirm that a monitoring framework is in place. Will the Minister provide further information about how well these panels are working?
	Under clause 28(3), a chief officer of police must make the referral to the local support panel. The current system allows numerous local bodies, including schools, colleges, universities, youth offending teams, local authority troubled families teams, charities and voluntary groups to be able to refer to the police, who can then conduct a screening process. Will the Minister confirm that this process will be allowed to continue, and will he explain why this particular aspect was not put on a statutory footing as well?
	My first concern is with the level of expertise that these panels must have, which is why I tabled amendment 21. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support package to address those risks. The issues are complex: the current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that may lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up these factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, the panel will be addressing issues it has not faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support.
	This is why we feel the Home Office needs to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual. The panel is tasked with assessing the progress the individual makes, but it does not necessarily have the ability to assess the quality of support provided by other agencies, which is why we want the Home Office to assess providers.
	The Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that could be radicalising people. That cannot be done unless the Home Office takes a lead in vetting those bodies. Under clause 32, the Home Secretary may indemnify Channel providers, so it seems quite reasonable for her to assess them as well. Indeed, it is my understanding that the Home Office, along with regional groups of police forces, do provide this level of support. It is our view that this role should be in the Bill, alongside the responsibilities given to local authorities. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. We both want to see support working better to provide locally-led interventions, but the Home Office needs a stronger role in supporting local authorities.
	The second amendment I shall speak to is amendment 22, which seeks to expand the membership of panels provided for under clause 29. At present, the Bill provides for just two statutory members of the panel: the local authority and the local police force. The local authority may, according to the explanatory notes, appoint other members. This contrasts sharply with current best practice as set out in the Home Office guidance, which suggests panels of up to 14 members. We do not think all need to be on every panel, and indeed many of them are part of the local authority, so they could be brought in as and when necessary, but we do think that both probation and health professionals should always be on the panel.
	There are two advantages to increasing the expertise on the panel. First, the panel will be in a better position to assess the 22 vulnerability indicators that I mentioned and to make a correct decision. Secondly, it ensures that more of the bodies that will provide the support have a role in determining that support. If we look at the existing guidance, we find that it may include: life skills, anger management, cognitive and behavioural contact, health awareness contact and drug and alcohol awareness. Each of those categories would obviously need to be tailored, and would come with a cost. We therefore think it is important for probation and health professionals to be included as statutory members of the panel.
	I want to raise three more issues with the Minister. First, will he tell us who will be responsible for monitoring the duty given to public bodies, which would potentially lead to the issuing of a direction by the Home Secretary. The Bill refers to a mandatory order, which I assume the Home Secretary can seek when she wishes to enforce a direction, but will an appeal process be available to a public body that considers a direction to be unfair or unfounded?
	My second question concerns co-operation. Clause 30 gives various bodies, as listed in schedule 4—again, Scottish bodies are absent—a duty to co-operate with the directions of the panel, which, as I have said, could take a number of forms. Who will bear the cost of providing the support, and how will disputes between the panel and the provider on questions such as cost, proportionality and effectiveness be settled?
	Thirdly, there is the issue of compulsion. The programmes for which chapter 2 of part 5 provides are—rightly—voluntary. Will the Minister tell us how the police, or indeed the panel, would respond if an individual rejected support, or if support were deemed to be ineffective?
	Although we support the measures in this part of the Bill, we have a number of concerns, to which I hope the Minister will return. They relate to burden-sharing between local agencies and central Government, practical support for local authorities, implementation in devolved areas, and the level of scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the modest improvements that we have suggested, and to give assurances on other matters. If he does not, we will reserve our position, and may return to the issues at a later stage.

James Brokenshire: We have had a good and wide-ranging debate that has touched on powerful and important themes relating to how we should confront some of the extremism and terrorism that sadly resides in many of our communities.
	The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) rightly drew attention to the very direct context in which the debate takes place. I referred last night to the unfolding events in Australia, but we have now learnt that Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson lost their lives in that appalling incident, and I know that the Committee will wish to send its kindest wishes and thoughts to the families and friends of those involved. We also learnt today of a shocking further attack in Peshawar, where innocent children who were simply going about their studies in north-west Pakistan were brutally killed. That news is deeply shocking. It is horrifying that children should be killed simply for going to school. I think that we all share an utter revulsion at and condemnation of those who were responsible for these despicable acts.
	We have had a useful debate on part 5, and the nature of seeking to put the Prevent strand of our Contest counter-terrorism strategy on a statutory footing. Of course, Prevent aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism—it deals with all forms of terrorism, including terrorism associated with far-right extremists—but resources are focused on the areas of highest threat. The most significant of those threats currently comes from al-Qaeda, from the so-called Islamic State, or ISIL—which is neither Islamic nor a state—and from other terrorist organisations in Syria and Iraq. However, terrorists associated with neo-Nazis and far-right extremist groups pose a continued threat to our safety and security, and remain very much a focus of our work.

Lady Hermon: Before the Minister moves further into singing the praises of part 5, with which I actually agree, I do think he owes the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed this House, an explanation or some justification for the omission of Northern Ireland from the application of part 5. We in Northern Ireland suffer not just from those who leave Northern Ireland to be radicalised in Syria and come back into Northern Ireland; we also have to deal with the current recruitment by dissident republicans such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. The Minister must explain why part 5 does not extend to us.

James Brokenshire: Of course I absolutely recognise the continuing challenge and threats in Northern Ireland and commend the work of our various agencies and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in keeping people in Northern Ireland safe from Northern Irish-related terrorism. What I would say to the hon. Lady is that Prevent does not currently extend to Northern Ireland. Different measures are put in place in Northern Ireland and the intent of the Bill is to put on a statutory footing the programmes and arrangements that currently exist under the Prevent strand, but that is not in any way to undermine the very important work taking place in Northern Ireland to confront the terrorist threat there.

Lady Hermon: I rise with some sense of exasperation because with the greatest respect to the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard, he will know that the only mention of the Prevent strategy is in the explanatory notes, which are not part of the Bill. The terms of the Bill, and clause 21 which is under consideration, provide that there is a duty to have
	“regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”
	That applies to Northern Ireland and should apply to Northern Ireland. The word “Prevent” is not in clause 21.

James Brokenshire: As I have sought to explain to the hon. Lady, the clause seeks to give effect to the Prevent strategy. That is why it has been formulated in the way it has. As I have underlined, these provisions are about placing the existing programmes on a statutory footing. Currently Northern Ireland does not have programmes equivalent to, for example, Channel, which is available in England and Wales, and that is why the Bill has been constructed in this manner, but that is not in any way to resile from the exceptionally important work that continues to be undertaken in seeking to arrest or to disrupt terrorist threats in Northern Ireland and work seeking to counter people being drawn into terrorism. We have taken that different approach in respect of Northern Ireland. I recognise that the hon. Lady does not accept or agree with that response, and obviously I respect her perspective, but this is the manner in which the Bill has been advanced.

Lady Hermon: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way one last time to the hon. Lady, but then I will need to make some progress.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister. I need him to put on the record whether or not the Home Office has capitulated to any overtures made to it by Sinn Fein or other political parties that this part of the Bill should not extend to Northern Ireland. I am glad the Minister is shaking his head.

James Brokenshire: I can give a categorical no to the hon. Lady’s question. This is rather about the manner in which the Prevent strategy has been advanced and, indeed, the separate arrangements with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has the lead responsibility in relation to a number of these matters.
	I want to come back to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who opened the debate, and her direct challenge in relation to where the focus should lie and the underpinning of terrorism. I draw her attention to objective one of the Prevent strategy, which is the ideological challenge. That is absolutely at the heart of the Prevent strategy—the work we do as central Government and the work undertaken at a local level in communities. It says in terms:
	“All terrorist groups have an ideology. Promoting that ideology, frequently on the internet, facilitates radicalisation and recruitment”,
	and
	“Challenging ideology and disrupting the ability of terrorists to promote it is a fundamental part of Prevent.”
	I will come on to respond—

Hazel Blears: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will respond, if I am given a chance, to the amendment the right hon. Lady has tabled and to a number of points other Members have made.
	It is worth underlining that we have made it clear that we will work with all sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation, including, as we have heard, those in education, health care providers and the wider criminal justice system. In legislating, our intention is to spread the many examples of good practice that have developed and to ensure that across the country specified authorities understand the risk from radicalisation in their area, and take proportionate steps to confront and deal with it. What that will mean in practice will be set out in statutory guidance, which I will go on to talk about.
	One area that has attracted comment is the power in clause 25 for the Secretary of State to issue directions to a specified authority to enforce the performance of the Prevent duty. Directions may be given only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the specified authority has failed to discharge that duty. The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh or Scottish Ministers before giving a direction where the direction relates to the devolved functions of a Welsh or Scottish specified authority.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), speaking for the Opposition, asked what challenge process there would be. In essence, there is an escalation process. The guidance will set out certain responsibilities for each of the different agencies and institutions. If an agency or institution is then not meeting that, the Government will seek to work with that body to put in place appropriate guidance and steps that may be necessary. I chair a Prevent oversight board—Lord Carlile is a member of it—which seeks to assess our delivery. It would seek to assess that process and perhaps make a recommendation to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. The Secretary of State then has to give a direction, which is open to challenge by way of judicial review. For the Secretary of State to enforce it, she would have to get the specific order from the court and the court would need to enforce it. So there is a clear escalation process. Reaching the end of it would be highly unlikely, but it is absolutely right that we reserve that ability to give directions in that way and provide that escalation process.
	That is an important point for the universities sector to understand, and it was certainly in the evidence I gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in highlighting some good practices. There is good guidance to be found among individual universities and in other sectors—indeed, I could cite the guidance of the National Union of Students. Many examples of good practice highlight where the duty needs to go, in ensuring that good practice is put in place and in sharing it. So a number of safeguards and limitations are built into these proposals to ensure that the powers are dealt with appropriately, with multiple layers of protection, including judicial oversight. It is important to restate that.
	Let me deal with amendments 30 and 31 to chapter 1 of part 5, which stand in the names of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I will listen carefully to their recommendations and contributions, because I know the passion they hold for this subject matter, the knowledge they have and their intent to ensure that the Government and society as a whole are doing the right thing when seeking to prevent terrorism and in confronting the narrative, and the perverted and
	twisted justification that may lie behind it. She made some good points in drawing the Committee’s attention to the work of Sara Khan and We Will Inspire, and I am very aware of its work. It is a good example of a civil society group taking action, underlining the role British Muslim women play and empowering people. Other organisations such as Families Against Stress and Trauma are looking at the role of family and seeking to ensure that families feel able to come forward to seek assistance.

Hazel Blears: One issue that has been of deep concern to me for the past few years has been the lack of support for communities more generally to build their resilience to the extremist message. The Government seem now to be making a distinction between their work with individuals and Channel, and their work with families, but what I do not see is the broader work with communities more generally that can help to create a climate within which this ideology is not tolerated, the discourse is not acceptable and work is done on a broader framework. I am concerned about this and I would like to hear from the Minister that communities are not excluded from this programme of work.

James Brokenshire: They absolutely are not. Those communities are very much a core strand of the work. If we look at what Prevent has achieved over the period from 2011, we can see that approval has been granted to 180 projects, reaching out to 55,000 people. This year we are supporting more than 70 projects, and with the engagement of our co-ordinators we are actively building the capability of communities and civil society organisations and providing them with the skills to campaign against extremist material, including that which is available online. I recognise the point that the right hon. Lady makes, but it is absolutely our intent that Prevent will continue to do that work.
	The Prime Minister has announced an additional £130 million to be made available for increased counter-terrorism work, which will include Prevent activity. I can assure the right hon. Lady that although there is still work to do on how the funding is to be allocated between different aspects of our Contest strategy, Prevent will clearly be an important part of the support and indeed will help to meet the obligations that are contemplated in the Bill.
	On the counter-terrorism internet referral unit, the right hon. Lady made a point about challenging extremism online, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I underline the fact that since the CTIU was set up, 65,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content have been taken down, with 46,000 items being taken down since December 2013. There is the ability to report that. The general point has been made about the role of industry, and there is more that industry can do. That is a point that we as a Government have underlined very clearly. It is also a message that this House has underlined, reflecting as it has on the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee in its recent report.
	Let me move now to the specifics of the right hon. Lady’s amendment. In respect of the duties in the Bill, confronting extremism that can lead to terrorism is not some implicit aspect of this but absolutely intrinsic to the work. That was why we did not see the necessity of
	placing this matter in an explicit way in the Bill, because it is so intrinsic in meeting that obligation. We believe that that is adequately covered in the duty, but obviously I will continue to reflect on the clear message that the right hon. Lady has given on this. I recognise the sincerity and the manner in which she has advanced her amendment.
	I certainly recognise that extremism goes much wider than terrorism and includes behaviour that it would not be appropriate to target in counter-terrorism legislation or work, and that we must not consider that wide-ranging work solely through the lens of counter-terrorism. That is why the Home Secretary has announced that the Home Office is developing and leading a new extremism strategy across Government, recognising that it is not simply the Home Office that should be involved, as a number of different Departments also have roles and responsibilities. We plan to publish the new strategy in the spring.
	Amendment 19 would change clause 24 to say that the Secretary of State “must” instead of “may”
	“issue guidance to specified authorities about the exercise of their duty”.
	We have publicly committed to issuing guidance at the same time as we commence these provisions. We will be publishing a draft version of that guidance for consultation very shortly. The guidance will set out the type of activity that we expect specified authorities to consider when complying with the duty. The draft guidance will set out a risk-based approach to the Prevent duty. As a starting point, all specified authorities should demonstrate an awareness and understanding of the risk of radicalisation in their area, institution or body. It will also address the circumstances in which it is appropriate to share information and make it clear that neither the Prevent programme nor this duty will involve any covert activity.
	I want to take on board the point about universities and freedom of speech. As I have said previously, universities’ commitment to freedom of speech and the rationality underpinning the advancement of knowledge mean that they represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. The duty is not about restricting freedom of speech.

Diana Johnson: We have not had the advantage of seeing that guidance. Is the Minister saying that there will be just one set of guidance covering all the bodies we have been discussing this afternoon?

James Brokenshire: It is intended to be one set of guidance covering all the relevant public bodies, but our intention is not simply to publish it; we also intend to hold a public consultation. It is not simply about the House being satisfied with the guidance; we intend to consult widely so that these issues can be examined carefully. The hon. Lady also mentioned clinical commissioning groups. Certainly, as part of the consultation, we will want to receive inputs regarding whether any other bodies should be brought within the ambit of the Bill.

Hazel Blears: When we were discussing the need to counter ideology, I asked whether that would be included in the guidance. I think it is absolutely essential that we have that guidance before we debate the Bill on Report, because so much hangs on its contents. It will be impossible for us to take that broader view without it.

James Brokenshire: I hear that message loud and clear. I hope that the right hon. Lady will receive further reassurance when she reads the guidance.
	We shared the details of our proposals with the devolved Administrations at the earliest opportunity, subject to ongoing discussions within the Government. I have spoken and written to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Welsh First Minister about the Bill. The Home Secretary also had the opportunity to discuss these matters with the First Minister in the Joint Ministerial Committee on Monday, which was chaired by the Prime Minister. We continue to work closely with counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments, at both ministerial and official level, but the Government’s intention is that the provisions will apply to Scotland. We are discussing that with the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
	I heard the comments from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but this is a reserved matter and many of the specified authorities that will be subject to the duty in Wales and Scotland will exercise devolved functions, so it is important that they continue to work in that way. The clear point is that this is about national security. I think that we can learn in both directions. He said that lessons could be learned from practice in Scotland, and I am sure he would recognise that equally there might be very good lessons—we have heard some examples today—that could be learned from practice in England and Wales.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned amendment 20 and the requirement that it be considered. I hope she understands that it is still to be considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We shall wait to hear what it says before making a change of the sort she contemplates. I recognise the need for appropriate examination of these matters and note the comments she has made. We will certainly reflect upon that point in the light of any further considerations and recommendations.
	Amendment 21 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. As I have explained, clause 28 already includes provision for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to support a panel in respect of its functions. Guidance already exists for local partnerships. We will consult relevant bodies on how that should be updated and then issue new statutory guidance. The amendment also seeks to provide the panel with a list of approved providers of deradicalisation programmes and ensure that they are subject to monitoring. The list of approved providers is already made available to key members of the panel so that they can determine who might be best placed to deliver a theological or ideological intervention. It is the role of the chair to use the panel’s expertise to identify the most appropriate support package for an individual.
	Amendment 22 amends clause 29 to add the local health care commissioning group and a local representative of the National Offender Management Service as required members. These organisations are listed in schedule 4 as partners of local panels under the duty to co-operate. It is key to the success of the programme that panels have access to the right information and have the most appropriate attendance. I agree that it is essential that partners from health and NOMS co-operate under these provisions, and I believe they will. It is not necessary
	to express that in the terms of the amendment. It may not be appropriate for them to take part in all aspects of the meeting, but we need to keep the matter under review.
	Clause 30 places a duty on partners of a panel to co-operate with the panel and the police in carrying out their functions and supporting people who might be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. This will include the giving of information.
	Finally—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Thank you. Finally, on new clause 12, I say again to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we consult closely with our European partners and that is kept under close review. We take international best practice firmly to heart. Her new clause, which specifies certain European countries, is not needed because of that over-arching requirement.
	On the basis of the assurances that I have provided, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

Hazel Blears: I thank the Minister for his customary good manners, politeness and attention to detail on these issues. I have no doubt that he will consider in great depth the amendments that were tabled.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for supporting the amendments today, and I thank members of my own Front-Bench team for their attention to detail, helping to raise the profile of Prevent and Channel and countering radicalisation, which is so important to all of us not just in this country, but across the world.
	I do not want to ruin the Minister’s Christmas, but he has given me a solemn undertaking that he will continue to consider the substance of our amendments. If, indeed, countering the ideology is intrinsic to all the Prevent work, I still cannot understand why there is a reluctance to make that commitment explicit in the Bill. I accept that it might not be implicit. I accept now that it is intrinsic. I would like the Minister to move just that one step forward from intrinsic to explicit, and if he was able to do that, I would be extremely grateful.
	The Minister has also given us an undertaking that the guidance under clause 24 will be available for consideration on Report in this House. That is essential. I am delighted to have that commitment on the record today. On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment, reserving my right to come back on Report.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Amendment proposed: 20, page15,line21,leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
	(a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions, and
	(b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force.
	(6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section.
	(8) Such an order—
	(a) is to be a statutory instrument, and
	(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.” .—(Diana Johnson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 216, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 25 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clauses 31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Review of international best practice around deradicalisation

‘(1) The Secretary of State Shall, within three months of this Act coming into force, lay before both Houses of Parliament a review into international best practice around deradicalisation.
	(2) The review under subsection (1) shall include in particular—
	(a) examination of best practice in—
	(i) Germany;
	(ii) Denmark;
	(iii) Sweden;
	(iv) other countries as determined by the Secretary of State.
	(b) the role of community-based organisations in developing and delivering strategies to prevent radicalisation and to deradicalise individuals.
	(c) evidence-based recommendations for the rapid implementation of a comprehensive deradicalisation programme in the UK.’—(Caroline Lucas.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The Committee divided:
	Ayes 217, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 34
	 — 
	Insurance against payments made in response to terrorist demands

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Clause 35 stand part.
	Schedule 5 stand part.

James Brokenshire: Clauses 34 and 35 address two discrete but important aspects. Clause 34 amends the Terrorism Act 2000, so that an offence is committed if an insurer or reinsurer reimburses a payment that they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, has been made in response to a terrorist demand. Like other terrorist-financing offences, the measure will have extraterritorial effect. As a result of the measure, we will ensure and put beyond any doubt that UK insurance companies do not form part of a terrorism ransom chain, and that those who make payments to terrorist entities cannot be reimbursed for the payment.
	Clause 35 introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments to the power to examine goods at ports contained in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as amendments to other enactments relating to that power. Those changes follow on from a number of recommendations that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, highlighted in terms of the need for certain clarifications in respect of the specific schedule 7 power. The purpose of these changes is to clarify the legal position in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods that comprise items of post, and to put beyond doubt the basis in law for this vital investigative capability.

David Hanson: I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is right that we do not pay ransoms and that insurance companies are not allowed to do so. The Bill proposes to make it illegal to make payments on ransom insurance policies, and that is an argument I support and do not wish to argue against this evening. However, I do want to ask him a couple of questions.
	Will the Minister tell the Committee how he has consulted with insurance companies on the impact and implementation of these measures? The Government’s own impact assessment makes it clear that there is a risk that:
	“UK insurers/reinsurers may lose business. Overseas insurers may be able to offer the same product as UK insurers but without this restriction. Based on consultation, we estimate…UK insurers/reinsurers’ annual gross premium income from kidnap and ransom insurance policies to be between £60 and £160 million.”
	a year. There are two issues I want to raise. What response has he had from insurers on their potential loss of £160 million? I am particularly concerned about whether the measure will simply transfer that insurance risk to companies that operate abroad.
	I want clarity on clause 34, which makes it a criminal offence for people in the UK to take out ransom insurance. If a UK citizen insured themselves through a foreign company, would the provisions still apply? The Minister has mentioned extraterritorial reach, but I want to be clear that the Bill does not deny UK insurance companies the premiums of £60 million to £160 million by simply transferring the fund to foreign companies. Will the provision apply to a company based in the UK but whose policy could be placed with an insurance underwriter based in America, France or Rome? I would be interested to know whether all those aspects are covered. I am sure the Minister will be able to allay my concerns and fears.
	As an Opposition spokesman I continue to support the straightforward principle—I supported it when I was a Minister—that we do not pay ransom demands, because they simply encourage further kidnappings and associated activity. Does the Bill cover other areas, such as a kidnapped oil worker? We may not pay a ransom, but there might be insurance issues related to covering his loss of salary or his mortgage payments. I want to be clear that the measures cover the issue of ransom, as opposed to other insurance matters that a responsible company would want to implement.
	Finally, the Bill has a clear definition of terrorism, but I would welcome the Minister’s view of, for example, Somali pirates. They are not terrorists, but does the definition cover the payment of ransoms in general, or is its focus on terrorism alone? If the Minister wishes to table further amendments, I would be happy to support measures that address other types of ransom, because it is a cardinal principle that we do not pay ransoms in any way, shape or form for individuals who have been kidnapped. I do not quite understand the Minister’s approach to insurance payments, helpful though it is, and I would welcome an explanation of his position on other types of kidnap ransoms.
	We support clause 35, which is a sensible measure. I do not need to say anything else. I hope the Minister will respond to my comments.

James Brokenshire: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is a sobering fact that ISIL alone made $35 billion to $45 billion between September 2013 and September 2014. There is no doubt that that has boosted its capability. Simply put, money paid to terrorists equals an increased threat to the safety of UK citizens. The right hon. Gentleman understands that, as he made clear in his speech.
	We consulted leading representatives of the insurance industry and its regulators, the police and operational and international partners about the measure. We have had constructive discussions with the industry. This is a niche part of the wider insurance market and it makes up only a small part of the business of those insurers. Insurance companies have been clear that their policies exclude reimbursement of ransoms paid to proscribed groups in any case. The point of the measure is to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond doubt. Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 centres on what constitutes arrangements and we are seeking to provide complete
	clarity. The measures are framed in the context of terrorism, although there are various insurance policies that operate in the market, because they are intended to prevent money going to terrorist groups.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about extraterritorial jurisdiction. The measures are intended to govern insurance companies based in the UK, so that they cannot offshore those payments; if they have some other insurance company with links to the UK, that company will be caught by the measures. It is therefore important that the legislation is framed in that manner.
	There is no suggestion that UK insurance companies have been paying or facilitating the payment of terrorist ransoms. The UK insurance industry conducts itself professionally and with due regard to UK legislation and regulations. However, we do not want insurance companies to be put in a position in which they reimburse payments that have gone to terrorist groups, which does represent a real risk. It is important that we underline the due diligence that both insurance companies and their customers should undertake in such situations.
	We believe that this legislation will give a clear message that kidnap for ransom is deplorable. The focus of the Bill is countering terrorism, and ransom payments can provide terrorist groups with huge injections of money, which they can then use in threatening the public. That is why the measures are required.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 36
	 — 
	Privacy and Civil Liberties Board

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 24, in clause36,page22,line14,leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—
	(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—
	(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006,
	(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010, and
	(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011,
	in the discharge of their statutory functions;
	(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter­Terrorism Act 2008, this Act, and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;
	(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;
	(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;
	(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;
	(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;
	(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism.
	(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”
	This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government‘s Terms of Reference for this 
	body
	.

Gary Streeter: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 23, in clause36,page22,line22,leave out “Privacy and Civil Liberties Board” and insert “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”.
	This would rename the body created by Clause 36.
	Amendment 25, in clause36,page22,line25,at end insert
	“in accordance with the Code of Public Appointments”.
	Amendment 26, in clause36,page22,line32,at end insert—
	“(i) the information-gathering powers of the board;
	(j) reporting requirements, and the formulation of and consultation on an annual work plan;
	(k) the access to such relevant classified material as may be required in order for the board to undertake its functions under subsection (1);”
	This increases the points that have to be included in regulation brought forward by the Secretary of State to include information gathering powers, formulation of an annual work plan and relevant to classified material.
	Amendment 8, in clause36,page22,line32,at end insert—
	“(3A) Regulations under section (3) shall include provision requiring the board to undertake an inquiry into the retention of and access to data relating to professions that operate under a duty of confidentiality.”
	Amendment 9, in clause36,page22,line34,at end insert—
	“(4A) Regulations under section (3) shall provide for the membership of the board to include representatives of professions who operate under a duty of confidentiality.”
	Amendment 10, in clause36,page23,line9,at end insert—
	““professions who operate under a duty of confidentiality” shall include, but not be limited to, journalists, legal representatives, medical professionals and Members of Parliament.”
	Clause 36 stand part.
	Clause 37 stand part.
	Amendment 18, in clause38,page23,line31,at end insert—
	“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with Welsh Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Measure or Act of the National Assembly of Wales.
	(4B) The Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Scottish Parliament.
	(4C) The Secretary of State must consult with the Northern Ireland Executive before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
	This would ensure that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly without first consulting with the Scottish or Welsh Governments or the Northern Ireland Executive.
	Clauses 38 to 41 stand part.
	Government amendment 12.
	Clauses 42 and 43 stand part.
	New clause 3—Intercept Evidence—use in legal proceedings—
	“(1) Section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph 1(f) insert—
	“(g) any proceedings relating to an offence which, if committed in England and Wales at the time of the conviction, would have constituted an offence triable only on indictment (“an indictable-only offence”) under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.””
	This new Clause removes the exclusion of intercept evidence from legal proceedings in criminal prosecutions.
	New clause 7—Review of Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament resources and powers—
	“The Secretary must, within a reasonable time period, consult the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and lay a report before Parliament within six months of the commencement of this Act, on the resources and powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”

Diana Johnson: This group of amendments relates to the Government’s plans to create a privacy and civil liberties board. Clause 36 does not actually tell us very much—it is an enabling clause—so I have tabled amendments 24 and 25 to allow us to debate what the board will actually do.
	As the clause is currently drafted, we have a name for the board, and there are three possible ways it could go. First, we have an idea of what a privacy and civil liberties board could look like from its name, which invokes the idea of a body with a wide remit of work on privacy and civil liberties issues in the United Kingdom, and which would safeguard human rights. Such a body would be very similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was created by a Labour Government.
	Secondly, the Home Office has published terms of reference, which suggest a body that will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in providing oversight of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK and investigating the operation of that legislation. We think that what is contained in the terms of reference is sensible and would provide both capacity and openness in the oversight of counter-terrorism policy. However, as I have said, clause 36 is quite an empty provision at the moment.
	The third possible version of the board is as currently constituted in clause 36, which gives the Home Secretary powers to create—in future, if she wishes to do so—procedures, membership and the work plan for the board and provisions on publishing of reports. All those details are left to future secondary legislation.
	If the body is created it is important that it has strong powers. Our amendments 23 to 26 would help achieve that. The post of independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been around for over 40 years and its current formulation was created by a Labour Government. The post works well, and both holders of it since 2001 have served with real distinction. That does not mean that we are opposed to further strengthening of the
	oversight arrangements. Earlier this year, the current independent reviewer, David Anderson, QC, identified the limitations of his reviewer role, including the fact that it was restricted to certain statutes and the fact that significant powers, including those in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, were excluded and were therefore going unreviewed. He also pointed out that as a part-time reviewer without proper administrative support, he has extremely limited capacity.

David Davis: I guess that the precursor of the proposal is the organ with exactly the same name in the United States, which was activated only after the Snowden events, when information was not just put in the public domain but became controversial and raised issues in Washington. The danger is that the body becomes toothless, does not have investigatory powers and cannot pre-empt a future Snowden. It seems to me that the most important aspect of that is the investigatory powers, not the rest.

Diana Johnson: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will contribute to the debate, and I certainly have things to say about the title of the body and what it will be doing.
	It is important to note what David Anderson said about being a part-time reviewer without proper administrative support and limited capacity. If the proposals on clause 36 were meant to address those concerns, they do not achieve that. They do nothing to address the areas of counter-terrorism legislation excluded from the remit of the commissioners, such as those in the 2008 Act, the powers in this Bill or use of the royal prerogative. David Anderson notes:
	“These omissions reduce confidence in counter-terrorism law and are hard to understand, particularly after the Home Secretary agreed, as recently as March 2013, that ‘the scope of the Independent Reviewer’s responsibilities should keep pace with changes to primary legislation’, and accepted in principle my recommendation that the 2001 and 2008 Acts ‘should be examined with a view to extending your statutory functions to include the review of relevant sections of those Acts’. Indeed, as initially proposed in July, the functions of the PCLB would have extended to both these Acts.”
	The Bill does not address issues of capacity and resources for the independent reviewer, either, although the impact assessment suggests that the board will receive far greater resources than those given to the independent reviewer. The cost of members of the board seems to take up much of that, and the impact assessment anticipates that the rate will be £897 a day. Is that correct and will the Minister comment on it?
	The work that members of the board will do is not clear, either. The current reviewer describes the relationship between the independent reviewer and the proposed new board as
	“ill-defined and potentially problematic”
	and goes on to say that
	“the idea is…for the Board ‘to provide advice and assistance’ to the Independent Reviewer. Both advice and assistance are always welcome: but the former, including from the most eminent and knowledgeable quarters, is already frequently sought and freely given, whereas the latter is critically lacking. To require the Independent Reviewer to chair a Board…will make further claims on the Independent Reviewer’s time and could easily lead to competing priorities and inefficiencies. For there to be a net benefit, commensurate with the cost of resourcing the Board, its
	members will have to be doers rather than talkers, willing to accept direction in relation to often unglamorous researching and writing tasks.”
	The Bill does not make provision for this, nor does the impact assessment’s description explain who will undertake the research and assistance roles that are so badly needed.
	Finally, there is an issue about access to documents. Will the panel be security-cleared to the same standard as the independent reviewer? Will the staff? What will be the procedures for redacting documents either before they are passed on to the board or before they are published? These are the issues we are trying to address with our amendments. Amendment 24 has been tabled to ensure a board with a statutory remit that includes the areas that the independent reviewer does not cover. It will also ensure that the board could respond to other areas of considerable and understandable public concern about the operations of counter-terror policy. We want the board to consider not just privacy but other human rights impacts, as well as the effectiveness of counter-terror policy. As David Anderson points out, counter-terrorism oversight in the past has taken strength from not being limited. If the office of the independent reviewer has influence with the authorities, it is in part because the reviewer can make recommendations to improve not just the fairness, but the effectiveness of counter-terrorism law.
	Importantly, especially given the earlier discussions about the breadth of public bodies going to implement Prevent, we also want the board to be allowed to make recommendations to public bodies and public authorities. We tabled amendment 25 in particular to ensure that appointments to this body are made in line with the code of public appointments. We want the board to include real experts who will be able to access materials and provide real insight. We do not want a body compiled through patronage. We tabled amendment 26 to ensure that the statutory instrument creating this body addresses key questions about information gathering, reporting and access to documents.
	We would rename the body to give it a title that reflects the nature of what it will actually do. As I said, the current name is misleading. As David Anderson has pointed out, the name not only offers little clue as to the function of the proposed body, but suggests a pure civil liberties watchdog, which this is not. It is not clear why privacy is singled out. Other important human rights are potentially infringed by counter-terrorism law, including the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. Mr Anderson takes issue with the word “board”, which he feels is better suited to the historic management of waterways than to the rigorous exercise of scrutiny under the direction of an independent reviewer. So Labour would call the board “a counter-terrorism oversight panel”, and we would give it the powers to back that up.
	If the Government are genuinely committed to creating the body they outline in the terms of reference, they should accept these amendments without any hesitation. Of course, this is only part of the oversight package that we require. When the Justice and Security Bill was before the House, the Opposition suggested a number of ways of strengthening the Intelligence and Security
	Committee to give it a stronger, more independent and more open remit. We remain absolutely committed to the ISC and want it to continue to play a vital role in the oversight of the security agencies alongside a more prominent role for the intelligence commissioners, which is why we tabled new clause 7.
	Let me turn briefly to the miscellaneous provisions, particularly clause 38, to which I have tabled amendment 19. Under clause 38, the Secretary of State can make changes that are
	“consequential on any provision of this Act”
	in any piece of legislation made by any UK legislative body, including the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. This is important because under part 5, and particularly under clauses 21, 24 and 30, the Bill creates obligations on a range of bodies that are otherwise entirely devolved. As I mentioned in speaking to an earlier group of amendments, I do not think the Home Secretary should be able to amend devolved legislation without first consulting the relevant Government. That is why we tabled amendment 19, which I hope the Minister will feel able to accept.

David Davis: I shall speak to new clause 3, tabled in my name. It is entitled “Intercept Evidence—use in legal proceedings”. It is a probing amendment and I do not propose to press it to the vote on this occasion. If I had wanted to press it, I would have included in the new clause the relevant legal machinery required, which is complex but not difficult to achieve if I wanted to do so. My aim is to provoke some sort of non-partisan debate on what is the cornerstone of counter-terrorism strategy—the legal treatment of intercept evidence. If need be, depending on what the Minister says and what the Government do in the meantime, I shall come back to the issue on Report.
	The United Kingdom is unique among major western powers—common law powers and European Union countries—in not allowing the use of intercept evidence in court. I shall come on to the few exceptions in a moment. Why is that the case? It is difficult to know. GCHQ and its predecessor has always resisted putting any intercept evidence into the public domain. Frankly, this has probably been the case since the invention of the telephone. In the early days, I suspect it happened because gentlemen thought it ungentlemanly to listen in on other people’s conversations. Today, however, the argument advanced by the agencies concerns the protection of technique and capacity. Their attitude is very different from that of every other agency of its sort in the world. All our allies in the “five eyes” countries and beyond are equally concerned about protecting capability, but they also give high priority to the prosecution and conviction of terrorists and those who commit serious crimes. They manage to square that circle, but we do not appear to be able to do so at present.
	The fact that we cannot use intercept evidence makes it more difficult for us to secure convictions in court in terrorism and serious crime cases. Lord Lloyd of Berwick has talked of the
	“”difficulty of obtaining evidence on which to charge and convict terrorists, particularly those who plan and direct terrorist activities without taking part in their…execution”.
	Obtaining such evidence is incredibly important to those who must deal with the al-Qaeda style of terrorist operation, in which the bit players disappear in a cloud of vapour as they carry out their evil tasks.
	I pay attention to Lord Lloyd because he is an appeal judge, a past Interception Commissioner, the man whom the last Conservative Government put in charge of reviewing all terrorism legislation, and a strong advocate of the use of intercept evidence in court—as, indeed, are the past Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald and the past Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, along with a large number of senior police officers who are in charge of counter-terrorism.
	The result of not being able to use intercept evidence in court is the greater difficulty of securing convictions. That in turn has been used to justify indefinite detention under part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, control orders and terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and the proposals for first 90, then 42, then 28 days of detention without charge. I am glad to say that all those proposals were defeated, or have subsequently been revoked.
	What is perhaps worst of all is that the difficulty of securing convictions encourages our counter-terrorism agencies—both the intelligence agencies and the police agencies—to rely too much on disruption rather than prosecution. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is present, let me add that that approach patently failed in Northern Ireland. It leaves too many terrorists on the streets, and leaves the agencies with a bigger job and a very difficult, perhaps impossible, task of assessment. That is clear from the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Lee Rigby murder. The agencies fell down on the assessment of the murderers, who were known to them. The 7/7 bombers were also known to the agencies, but were judged to be too far down the list of 2,000 suspects. The problem is made worse by the failure to prosecute terrorists and to imprison terrorists after their convictions, and the lack of intercept evidence makes it worse still.
	GCHQ told the Chilcot inquiry, and the subsequent Privy Council committee, that the use of intercept evidence would not deliver many extra convictions, but it is very hard to square that with evidence from other countries. When I was looking into the matter seven or eight years ago, I went to America to speak to all the various “three letters of the alphabet” agencies over there, as well as—most important in this context—the Department of Justice, about their use of intercept evidence. The man who was the second-highest-ranking representative of the Department of Justice—the highest-ranking non-political appointee—said that not a single terrorism or organised crime case had been successfully prosecuted in the United States without the use of intercept evidence, which was a major part of its massively successful counter-terrorism and counter-Mafia operations.
	I have mentioned the Mafia and counter-organised crime operations because the problems involved are quite similar. Obtaining witnesses is difficult, as is obtaining intelligence. Those people kill their witnesses, and they are very clever about their use of communications. The organised crime syndicates in America are better advised than the likes of al-Qaeda by lawyers and technical people. The Americans have something called a CIPA process—CIPA stands for “Confidential Information Protection Act”. There is a CIPA court, which is a bit
	like the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It involves security-cleared prosecution and defence counsel and a security-cleared judge, and all its hearings take place in secret.
	That court decides on what evidence can be put to the main trial. This is a big battle that goes on. It prevents malevolent fishing expeditions by malevolent or badly judged lawyers, but it ensures that both sides of the case get proper treatment and proper justice is delivered. He said: “If we win the CIPA case, the main case goes straight to plea bargaining”—in other words, the other side gives in and accepts the outcome. He viewed the British approach as “incomprehensible.”
	It is not just the Americans; all the other English-speaking peoples in the “five eyes” do much the same. In 2006, Australia, under its intercept arrangements delivered just short of 1,500 convictions—a combination of serious crime and counter-terrorism work. Its director of public prosecutions was even fiercer. His words at that time were: “If you don’t use intercept against terrorists, you are not being serious.” There are various problems in the UK under the European Court of Human Rights regime which make things a little bit more risky for us than for others, but there are nevertheless issues that can be dealt with.
	The agencies talk about protecting methods or techniques and operations. They are both perfectly legitimate concerns and we need to deal with them. Let us deal first with methods or techniques. GCHQ is good but it is no better than the National Security Agency and it is tiny in comparison with the NSA. The techniques that are used to intercept are commonly in the public domain in court in all of the “five eyes” countries—in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In the days of the internet, we can get court records from around the world, and if we are worried about al-Qaeda knowing what we are doing, it can know by looking at every other country in our alliance, because they do the same things. So I do not think that that argument—the argument of technique—stands up much at all, but we can protect it.
	The second question is about protecting individual operations and agents and I will come back to that. This is manageable, too. All the countries—the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Israel—have techniques for certification and warranting that explicitly protect operations and operational security, again from malevolent defence lawyers going on fishing expeditions. I will cite the example later.
	Before I go any further, we should be clear that there is a range of exceptions to the ban on intercept evidence in court. One exception is intercepts carried out in other countries. We have this extraordinary arrangement in our law that means we can use intercepts arrived at abroad but not in the UK, so quite how we deal with the issues of protection of technique and operations in that regard is interesting and debatable. A number of the suspects who were charged after the Heathrow bomb plot were not convicted and some of those lack of convictions were critical. Three in particular—Ali, Sarwar and Hussain—were so critical that they were retried. The evidence that convicted them was e-mail intercept evidence obtained from Yahoo! in California. It led to their conviction in 2008. That demonstrates straight away the value of intercept in difficult cases. Those intercept data were not initially released because the US
	felt at first that it compromised an existing operation—against a man called Rashid Rauf in Pakistan. He disappeared or died—we do not know which—under strange, mysterious circumstances, and the information was then available because that operation was no longer sensitive. That is a simple example of both the effectiveness of the mechanism and the fact that we can control the information using American or other “five eyes” processes to release it when appropriate, and do it safely.
	There are two other exceptions to the use of intercept evidence in court that the House should be aware of. The first is the intercept of telephone and other communications out of prisons, which is open. For example, the Soham killer, Ian Huntley, was convicted largely on the basis of intercept evidence arrived at from there. The second is bugging. If we bug a phone, we can use the information, but if we intercept the phone we cannot. That is an extraordinary distinction, particularly given that if we put a physical bug in the phone I am holding, we could use the data, but if we put a software bug in it, we cannot. That is an astonishing piece of out-of-date law and it needs to be brought up to date.
	As I said, the intercept ban inevitably pushes agencies towards disruption rather than prosecution, which, of course, is inevitably less effective and leads to a progressively more difficult problem for agencies over time. The Privy Council committee very nearly recommended allowing a tentative use of intercept evidence some time ago, after Chilcot, but it appeared to be put off by one case that came up at the last minute—Natunen v. the Finnish Government. The ECHR stepped into that case, which revolved around intercept, and struck down the conviction. Natunen had been convicted as a drugs smuggler and some intercept evidence had been used in the case. It turned out that the police had destroyed some other intercept evidence that could have been—may have been—exculpatory. That case shocked the Privy Council committee. The reason for the change of stance at the last minute, as I understand it, was that Chilcot laid out five principles, a couple of which said, “The agencies have at all times to control the recording, transcription, storage and, by implication, the possible destruction of any evidence, and this should only be under the agencies’ control, not under judicial control.” Of course that leads to a problem—if they destroy evidence without judicial control, the balance in a court case may be changed—and so that cannot be done. It seems to me that we need to revisit that issue and start to try to copy some of the techniques used by other countries.
	This matter is very technical on one level but straightforward on another, and I go back to what I said about how the Americans do it. They have a court that goes through this information and sifts out what is available to put before the court, which is fair to both sides and does not allow the compromising of proper intelligence operations. That court is very like SIAC, a court we already use and which can hear intercept evidence. Although SIAC has had its rulings overturned from time to time by the ECHR, it has never been given any sort of instruction to put that intercept evidence in the public domain or make it available to people who are perhaps not responsible. So this issue is capable of resolution. We have been overly nervous and overly attentive to the understandable worries of GCHQ and the other agencies in the past. That is why those who work with this, including the police, are more—

Lady Hermon: I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Will he reflect on the fact that when we had Diplock courts in Northern Ireland they were supported by one section of the community and despised by another. We do not have Diplock courts in Northern Ireland any longer. If his proposal were to be legislated upon and we have a secret court that sits and hears all the evidence, including the intercept evidence, which I agree should be allowed into court, how does he think that would be received in Northern Ireland?

David Davis: I speak as probably one of the last people to give evidence at a Diplock court. It was against a terrorist who was convicted and then, under the Good Friday agreement, promptly released—it was a very frustrating process. Of course there is a problem of acceptability with any secret court. The hon. Lady will know that I fight vigorously against the idea of secret justice, but what we are talking about here is not secret justice; it is about a decision to let into the public domain more than is currently let into the public domain. Sometimes that information is exculpatory. One of the problems that has arisen with SIAC is that the agencies have not been good at their evidence discipline. At least one case has been struck down. A special advocate called Nichol, who is now a judge, discovered that MI5 was claiming that one person against whom it was bringing a case had used a passport to cross a border one week, and then the next week had brought a case against somebody else claiming that he used the same passport on the same day in a different place. So the agencies have their weaknesses. Nevertheless, the tool is significantly better than what we have at the moment. We may use intercept evidence in terrorism prevention and investigation measures and control orders. I happen to think that TPIMs and control orders are completely ludicrous, because they leave people who should be inside prison out on the streets. They should perhaps be called non-control orders, because all the dangerous ones disappear. Of course, it is not easy and there is an issue of presentation, but if there is fair representation from both sides to decide on what information should be put in the public domain, it is as close as we can get to public justice. That is the point.
	Most important of all, the agency’s job now begins to look more possible. Even some members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have been critical of the agencies. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) criticised the agencies, saying that they seem unable to deal with the thousands of suspects that they have in front of them and sift them in such a way that they can find the ones who are really dangerous. That is what happened in 7/7, 21/7 and in the terrible murder of Lee Rigby. This tool will give us a powerful anti-terrorism weapon and make the job easier to do. It will reduce the size of the target and, at the end of the day, deliver justice. I take the view that one of the most important things that we can do with would-be terrorists and actual terrorists is to convict them in a court of law so that their own communities understand what they have been planning and then punish them properly and take them out of circulation so that they are no longer a threat to the public. We need to take this matter incredibly seriously. Frankly, it is more important than most of the
	other issues in this Bill, except perhaps for Prevent. The Government should get a grip of this issue after 30 years of indecision.

John McDonnell: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on his consistent approach to this matter. I wholeheartedly support new clause 3, and hope that he brings it back on Report. I still cannot comprehend why intercept evidence has not been used. I have never had a satisfactory response to that in all the debates we have had.
	Let me turn now to amendments 8, 9 and 10, which stand in my name. I bring the Committee back to the debates we have been having throughout this Bill and that we had during the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. I am talking about the protection of professionals, journalists in particular, who have a duty of confidentiality and secrecy. Let me remind Members of the background to this. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 has been used as a device to avoid the requirement in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for judicial authority to undertake police investigations of the operation of journalists in particular, which also means collecting data on them.
	There is currently a case before the courts involving six journalists. Despite frequent freedom of information requests, there has been a complete inability to find out how much RIPA has been used by the police to investigate journalists. That puts journalists at risk, undermines the relationship that they have with their sources and puts their sources at risk.
	In addition to that concern, which is now being addressed by the courts, there is the issue with regard to the European Court of Justice, which struck down the EU data retention directive. That directive explicitly recognised the importance of data retention in preventing and detecting crime. It also stated that one of the 10 principles that a state must abide by is to
	“provide exceptions for persons whose communications are subject to an obligation of professional secrecy.”
	The Minister helpfully allowed me, National Union of Journalists representatives and its solicitor to meet officials to discuss his earlier indication that the data acquisition code of practice would be amended to ensure that where there are concerns relating to professions that handle privileged or confidential information, such as journalism, law enforcement should give additional consideration to the level of intrusion.
	The Minister kindly published the guidance last week. It is now out for consultation, which I welcome. Paragraph 3.74 states that
	“applicants, giving special consideration to necessity and proportionality, must draw attention to any such circumstances that might lead to an unusual degree of intrusion or infringement of privacy, and clearly note when an application is made for the communications data of a medical doctor, lawyer, journalist, Member of Parliament, or minister of religion. Particular care must be taken by designated persons when considering such applications.”
	I think that is really helpful. It does not go as far as the NUJ and others wanted, which was judicial oversight or approval in some form, but at least it gives us the basis for special considerations being taken into account with regard to journalists and others.
	My amendments would simply strengthen the role of the privacy and civil liberties board, or whatever title we give it tonight as a result of various amendments. Amendment 8 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes regulations under section (3) that include a provision requiring the board to undertake an inquiry into the retention of and access to data relating to professions that operate under a duty of confidentiality. That would allow the privacy and civil liberties board to look at how the new code of practice is operating and report on what impact it is having on the operation of journalists and those in the other professions.
	Amendment 9 seeks to amend the regulations so that the membership of the board includes representatives of those professions that operate under a duty of confidentiality. In that way, we would ensure some overview of the new code of practice and of the implications for journalists and others. In addition, the voice of journalists and others in professions that operate under this duty of confidentiality would be represented and heard on the civil liberties board when it advises the Secretary of State on the overall operation of this legislation.
	The amendments are in the spirit of trying to find, as we have done throughout our considerations of the Bill and the debate on DRIPA, a balance between ensuring that the authorities can investigate appropriate crime, including terrorism, and protecting those professions that work under this duty of confidentiality. It is a serious matter for journalists. There is a real concern that it might undermine their operation and put them at risk, but it would also undermine the ability of whistleblowers and others to come forward and put them at risk. As we have seen in recent cases, that might now be tested in the courts.
	I do not intend to press my amendments to the vote. They put forward some points for debate. Hopefully we will get a positive response from the Minister on the inclusion of at least some review, but also perhaps representation on the board.

James Brokenshire: Let me first address that last point from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Obviously we touched on that during our previous consideration of the Bill with regard to the code of practice under DRIPA, which has now been published, and I welcome his comments on that. We look forward to receiving feedback from him and from the NUJ on their views about our proposals as part of the consultation exercise. I understand his desire to see further scrutiny and challenge. Indeed, that examination remains ongoing on a number of different fronts. The interception of communications commissioner is carrying out a review in that area, which he intends to complete by 31 January next year. I repeat that we will of course want to consider his recommendations when we come to finalising the code, along with any other comments received. This is an important area that we have already debated. As I made clear on that occasion and am happy to reiterate, the Government recognise the importance of a free press and are determined that nothing should be done that might jeopardise that.
	It is notable that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is examining the issue more broadly. The civil liberties and oversight panel is intended to support the independent reviewer in some of his work. The Home
	Affairs Committee has provided its thoughts in relation to this issue, and Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee is looking more broadly at privacy and liberty. We look forward to receiving its report in due course, which may well touch on some of the themes that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington brought to the Committee this afternoon. Although I think his amendment is not necessary in the context of the debate today, I can reassure him about the level of scrutiny and examination that is being given to these essential points. I look forward to continuing the discussion of the matter.
	On clause 36 and the Opposition amendments, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board is intended to support the independent reviewer and in so doing will provide much-needed capacity to allow the reviewer to consider a wider range of subjects than it is currently possible for one individual to undertake. However, it is right that we ensure that the statutory functions and objectives of the board are in line with those of the role it is designed to support.
	Clause 36 provides for regulations to be made that would set out the detail of the board, including provisions about its composition, functions and appointment. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clearly, this is an important matter and any changes to existing oversight must be carefully considered—the point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) rightly highlighted. That is why the Government will publish a full public consultation that invites comments on the proposals and provides an opportunity for all interested parties to influence key elements of the board, including its composition and appointment, some of the rights of access to documentation and the structure of the membership.
	We will carefully consider the outcome of the consultation prior to bringing forward the regulations. We will invite comments on key elements relating to the organisation, membership, appointment and work programme of the board. Clause 36 already provides, subject to the outcome of the consultation exercise, that regulations may include provision about any number of the most important considerations relating to the board. That would allow the matters addressed in the amendments to be dealt with in the regulations, should it be appropriate to do so.

Lady Hermon: Even though part 5 does not extend to Northern Ireland, I would welcome a guarantee from the Minister that there will be at least one representative from every region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has, unfortunately, a huge wealth of experience and expertise in counter-terrorism. A guarantee that there will be a member from Northern Ireland on the new board would be very helpful and reassuring indeed.

James Brokenshire: I recognise the knowledge and expertise that reside in Northern Ireland. The independent reviewer has made a number of visits to Northern Ireland to satisfy himself about the application of a number of items of terrorist legislation pertaining to Northern Ireland. In the support that the board provides to the independent reviewer, it will look at those functions.
	I have heard clearly the hon. Lady’s representation and when the consultation is launched, I encourage her to make representations for the appropriate changes.
	The consultation will invite views on the important matter of the work programme—a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. The Bill provides that the privacy and civil liberties board will support the statutory functions of the independent review. Its remit is therefore in line with this aim. Should the statutory remit of the independent review change in the future, this would be reflected in the role of the board. The appointments will, of course, be undertaken in accordance with best practice, but until we have decided exactly how appointments are to be made, it would be premature to prescribe the process unduly.
	I turn to some of the other amendments tabled by the hon. Lady. The name of the board properly respects privacy and civil liberties. The aspects she referred to, such as broadening its scope, relate to matters of privacy and civil liberty. We therefore judge that the name of the board properly reflects its process of independent scrutiny of counter-terrorism powers to ensure that the balance is right.
	On the consequential amendments, amendment 19 addresses a point that we recognise in terms of how this may apply to other related matters, including the devolved matters that the hon. Lady highlighted. In practice, we would consult devolved Administrations. However, although Parliament and, in this case, the Secretary of State could still legislate, I can see the case for statutory consultation. Accordingly, I have some sympathy with what the amendment seeks to achieve, and I do not believe that we have a particular difference of view. Therefore, if she would be minded to withdraw her amendment, I would like to reflect on how we might best achieve the objective that I think we both share.
	On the ISC, the Justice and Security Act 2013 expanded the Committee’s role and remit, including formalising its role in overseeing the wider intelligence community. The budget has been doubled to £1.3 million per year, and that is reported on in more detail in the ISC’s annual report. This additional funding has strengthened the ISC, as is already being seen in the work it has undertaken in its scrutiny of the agencies through the new powers. As recently as 25 November, the ISC laid before Parliament a memorandum of understanding, which, in addition to addressing certain matters in the Justice and Security Act, sets out the overarching principles governing the relationship between the Committee and the parts of Government that it oversees, including its remit and powers. It is important that we allow the new memorandum of understanding to bed down properly before we institute another review. Therefore, I am not currently minded to accept the hon. Lady’s amendments.
	New clause 3 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who has had to step out of the Chamber. That is not intended to be any discourtesy to me in seeking to respond, and he has sent his apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling the new clause, which gives me the opportunity to debate an important issue that is recognised by many Members across the Committee. I think we all start from the same position that people who have
	committed a crime should be prosecuted and brought to justice. Anything that might make a successful prosecution less likely in cases where a person is guilty is clearly less than ideal and should be contemplated only where there is very good reason. The Government are committed to securing the maximum number of convictions in terrorism and serious crime cases. If a viable regime were identified, the introduction of intercept evidence might help us to do that. For that reason, the Government have sought to find a practical way to allow us to use intercept evidence in court.
	A further review of the issue has been undertaken—the eighth in 21 years. It has been overseen by a cross-party group of Privy Counsellors, including the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is in the Chamber, as well as Sir John Chilcot and a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard. I am sure that the whole Committee will recognise the breadth of experience and wisdom to be found in that group. The review will be published imminently. I hope that its findings will help further to inform consideration of this legally complex issue, which is crucially important for the UK’s national security. It is vital that all options are thoroughly explored and assessed. It would be wrong at this stage to seek to make the change that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden proposed, albeit that it was a probing amendment more than anything else.
	This will probably be my last opportunity to speak in the Committee. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to our three days of discussions and debate on the Floor of the House, which have added to the Bill. I have very much enjoyed taking part, and I look forward to continuing a number of these debates when we return on Report.

Diana Johnson: I listened to what the Minister said, in particular, about the amendments on clause 36. While I will not press them to a vote, I am minded to reserve our position until we return after the Christmas break. I thank everybody for their contributions to the Bill’s Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and wish everybody a very merry Christmas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 36 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendment made: 12,page25,line3,at end insert—
	“() section 18(10);”—(James Brokenshire.)
	Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill, as amended, reported.
	Bill to be considered tomorrow.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that references have been made during the course of today’s proceedings to the atrocities that have occurred in Pakistan. The latest information is that 141 have been murdered in Pakistan, of whom 132 were children aged between five and 14. As we would all agree, this has undoubtedly been an act of murderous inhumanity.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise this point of order not just to give the latest information, but to ask you whether there is any way in which the House can express its horror at and condemnation of what has occurred in Pakistan. It is an act of terror carried out —and recognised and admitted as such—by the Taliban. I hope that it will be possible for such condemnation to be expressed by the House.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that he is aware that I am not strictly in a position to say precisely when or by what means the House will be given the opportunity to express, on behalf of the people of this country, its feelings about what has happened in Pakistan. However, I am quite certain that those on the Treasury Bench have listened to what he said. Indeed, Members referred to this matter during the debates on terrorism this afternoon.
	May I on behalf of the House say that I am sure that every Member of the House, on behalf of the people whom we represent, would wish to express our absolute horror and enormous sadness at this terrible atrocity? We are used to seeing dreadful acts of terrorism, but rarely have we seen such an awful act of terrorism against children. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I am quite sure that the House will, at some point in the very near future, have the opportunity to address this matter.

Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill (Money)

Queen’s consent signified.

Penny Mordaunt: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	May I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker?
	The Government are keen that the Bill should move forward, and the passing of the money resolution is an important step in that process. The costs to local authorities of implementing the new freedoms in the Bill—to include prayers as part of official business, and to facilitate and support activities with a religious dimension—are seen as a new head of expenditure to be met out of the grants that authorities already receive from central Government. The motion refers to payments under other Acts being increased as a result of the Bill because, technically, a new head of expenditure is a notional increase for the purposes of Commons financial procedure, even though it might not, in fact, give rise to an increase in expenditure.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for his work on the Bill. The House last debated it on 21 November, when the Government’s support for the Bill was made clear. We support allowing local authorities the freedom to pray if they wish to and making this a matter of local choice once again.
	We consider the provisions in the Bill to be important. They right a wrong decision that was taken by the High Court when it ruled that councils had no power to carry on the centuries-old tradition of holding prayers at their meetings. The costs associated with the provisions are negligible. The Bill will not compel anyone to pray or any local authority to include prayers in their official business, nor does it define what constitutes prayer. The Bill will ensure that local authorities can support, facilitate and be represented at events with a religious element. Again, nothing in the Bill will compel a local authority to do anything that it cannot already do, such as organise a Remembrance Sunday event safely by closing a road for a short time. Rather, it protects local authorities from those with an axe to grind, who might wish to challenge such a decision. As far as local authorities are concerned, we expect any new expenditure to be negligible.
	I commend the motion to the House.

Jake Berry: I shall speak briefly in support of the money resolution to my Bill. There was no opportunity to speak on Second Reading, so I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister and her officials in the Box, and to colleagues across the House who have agreed to serve on the Public Bill Committee in the coming weeks and to support the Bill’s passage through the House.
	I believe that putting the freedom to pray on a statutory footing for all local authorities is an important issue for elected representatives who serve communities across the UK. I want to put on record my thanks to all councillors—from county councillors to parish councillors —for the work that they do in the community on our behalf.
	Finally, I am delighted to be able to take the Bill through Parliament and to protect people’s freedom to pray, because it is an important issue. As we approach Christmas, the celebration of the birth of who I believe to be the Prince of Peace, all elected officials might like to reflect that there may be more power in prayer than in any stroke of a Minister’s pen or ruling from the Chair, and that this Bill, which seeks to protect people’s freedom to pray, will enable people of all religious beliefs to seek guidance in their deliberations in elected office.

Lyn Brown: I rise to speak in support of the Bill. As we know, it came about owing to a successful challenge of Bideford town council’s practice of having religious prayers on its meeting agendas. The decision of the High Court in 2012 was that a local authority had no power to hold prayers as part of its formal business. The Bill will confirm unequivocally that prayers, religious observances or even philosophical observations may take place as part of the business of local authorities in England and Wales.
	I welcome the fact that the Bill is not prescriptive. It will leave it to local communities to determine what, if any, observances are appropriate to them; where they should be placed on the agenda; and whether they should be faith-based or otherwise. We must see this as a matter of local choice. Religious observance is a matter where local choice should prevail and in respect of which the virtues of tolerance, sensitivity and community well-being should shine through.
	This is a short, two-clause Bill with a simple intention that does not seem to conflict with the most liberal of expectations. It will enable local authorities of all types to include prayers if they wish to. It is not prescriptive, but enabling. I am content, on behalf of the Opposition, to wish the Bill and its purposes well.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 5 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Tribunals and Inquiries

That the draft Transfer of Tribunal Functions (Transport Tribunal) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Corporation Tax

That the draft Changes in Accounting Standards (Loan Relationships and Derivative Contracts) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House we shall take motions 7 to 10 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Banks and Banking

That the draft Banking Act 2009, (Mandatory Compensation Arrangements Following Bail-in) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.
	That the draft Banks and Building Societies (Depositor Preference and Priorities) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.
	That the draft Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Special Bail-in Provision, etc.) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.
	That the draft Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.—(Mel Stride.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Unsolicited phone calls and texts

Alison Seabeck: I present this petition having heard the concerns and personal examples of my constituents, particularly those from the areas of Southway, Estover and Budshead, who have been affected by persistent nuisance phone calls and—even worse—phone and text scams.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Plymouth Moor View constituency and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners would like the Government to provide additional powers to the Information Commissioner to stop the scourge of nuisance texts and phone calls; further declares that these calls are unsolicited but can result in the recipient being inconvenienced and charged when abroad.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the current law on cold and marketing calls and texts.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001413]

Closure of Glenburn Sports College

Rosie Cooper: Parents, pupils and members of the wider Skelmersdale community are opposed to the possible closure of Glenburn sports college that is currently being consulted on by Lancashire
	county council. People have marched through the town in protest and signed petitions, and the message in their consultation submission is clear: pupils and parents do not believe that closing the school is in the best interests of pupils. Delivering high-quality education unlocks choice and opportunity for our children and young people, and we strive for the best quality education that we can get. To achieve that goal there needs to be a comprehensive review of education across the town, and a desire to invest in the futures of those young people. To that end, I bring a petition to the House of Commons from the residents of West Lancashire and others.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of West Lancashire,
	Declares that there are plans to close Glenburn Sports College; further that the Petitioners do not support the closure of Glenburn Sports College but wish to keep it as the local school in the Skelmersdale area; further that the Petitioners deplore the high-handed way that Lancashire County Council decided to consult on the possible closure of the school; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 2,759 individuals.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Lancashire County Council to have a genuine consultation about the possible closure of Glenburn Sports College in order to listen to the pupils and parents of the school and to explain the decision-making process behind the plans to close the school; and further request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Lancashire County Council to give time and support to Glenburn Sports College to enable the school to improve its performance and financial position.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001415]

Treatment for Gastroparesis

Paul Burstow: I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituent Lauren Dobbe who is 14 years old. After many tests, she has been diagnosed with a disease called gastroparesis. There is a treatment: a gastric stimulator, which acts like a pacemaker. It is not a cure, but it helps with the symptoms. Unfortunately NHS England, which is responsible for funding this procedure, is dragging its feet. In addition to this petition, there is an online petition with more than 1,149 signatures from residents in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park. I am asking for common sense and compassion, and that NHS England act on the advice of four specialists and fund the treatment to give Lauren the most precious gift at Christmas—a normal teenage life.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that Lauren Dobbe suffers from Gastroparesis which causes her to be sick and suffer pain 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and requires her to be tube fed which denies her a normal teenage life; further that NHS England is causing unnecessary suffering and misery to Lauren and her family by delaying the use of a proven medical intervention to treat her Gastroparesis; further that the Petitioners regret that NHS England has failed to properly assess the case for funding the fitting of a Gastric Stimulator which would act like a pacemaker helping to control symptoms and would allow Lauren to eat normally; and further that this has happened despite the recommendations of four specialists and the second opinion sought by NHS England confirming the recommendations of the specialists.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons asks the Government to urge NHS England to review the application and make funding available for the fitting of a Gastric Stimulator for Lauren Dobbe and further request that the House of Commons asks the Government to urge NHS England to recognise that a failure to provide the procedure would condemn Lauren to a life being fed by tube, ignoring her wishes as well as those of her family and the independent and expert advice of clinical specialists.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. [P001414]

BOMBARDMENT OF THE HARTLEPOOLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

Iain Wright: Exactly 100 years today, the towns of Hartlepool and West Hartlepool were attacked by German forces. This is probably the single most momentous day in my constituency’s history, a day which for ever altered civilian life and the way in which modern warfare is conducted. The bombardment of the Hartlepools has been remembered and commemorated ever since, none more so than today, its centenary. A beautiful and poignant ceremony took place in Hartlepool this morning, at the precise time when the shells starting raining down on the innocent people of the town. I particularly want to thank John, Mandy and Charlotte Southcott of the Heugh Gun Battery Trust for their tireless efforts, but there are countless others who made the commemoration events today so special. On behalf of the House, I thank them all.
	It is a huge honour for me to be able to mark the centenary in this House and to ensure that Parliament has the chance to reflect on this important event in our country’s history. I am pleased that the Minister is in her place to respond to the debate, and I am particularly touched that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is in his place on the Opposition Front Bench.
	By the last weeks of 1914, the great war had been fought for four months. In that time it had descended into stalemate. From Calais to the Swiss border the allied forces and their German counterparts faced each other in dank, dangerous and rat-infested trenches. Countless attacks and raids had brought death and injury to thousands of soldiers, but had not been accompanied by any strategic breakthrough or military advance.
	In the space of a few short weeks in that short-lived optimism of summer 1914, Lord Kitchener, the new Secretary of State for War and darling poster boy of the British empire, had been able to raise, from a standing start, the first 100,000 recruits for a land army. German high command feared that the additional substantial resources on the western front, once operational, had the potential to inflict disproportionate damage on the German army. High commands in London, Paris and Berlin were anxious and frustrated, and sought alternative strategies that might give them the upper hand.
	In the very week of the bombardment of the Hartlepools, Winston Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, was considering a direct attack on Germany by the Royal Navy across the North sea. Rumours had gained ground in England that a German invasion of the south coast was imminent, and Berlin hoped that a bombardment of the north-east coast, using cruisers, might have the dual consequence both of ensuring that Kitchener’s forces would be kept away from the western front and in England to defend against possible invasion, and dispersing the land forces thinly across the coast from Berwick to Brighton, thereby keeping the option of invasion open to Germany.
	Those were the origins of the bombardment. The objectives of the mission were clear: a desperate need for a breakthrough against the stalemate of the trenches;
	a wish to boost the morale of the German people, especially just before Christmas; and a desire to provoke the Royal Navy into a confrontation that might reduce the capacity of the British fleet against its German counterpart. In addition, Germany hoped to inflict damage on Britain’s ports and coastal defences; reduce her industrial capability by damaging capacity and infrastructure; and, in perhaps the first example of mass and dramatic propaganda in modern warfare, demonstrate to the British people in as vivid and horrific a fashion as possible that Germany had more than the means to wage war and, indeed, that it had the technology and guile to wage such war on Britain’s own homeland.
	The Hartlepools were an obvious target. West Hartlepool was immensely important for munitions to the war. It had been a leading driver of the industrial revolution and in 1914 still possessed one of the busiest ports in the British isles as well as significant engineering works used to supply the war effort. Despite their industrial importance, the Hartlepools were rather meekly defended. There were two batteries, one at the Heugh possessing two six-inch guns, and the other 100 yards to the south at the lighthouse, with only one six-inch gun. The authorities clearly never anticipated an attack on the homeland from the sea.
	Wednesday 16 December 1914—nine days before Christmas—dawned with heavy mist and fog. It was cold, but without any wind. Visibility was low, giving the German cruisers effective cover to reach 4,000 yards off the coast without being detected. At precisely 8 o’clock, the fire commander at Fairy Cove, about 500 yards from the Heugh battery, received the following message from South Gare battery, about five miles down the coast: “dreadnoughts steaming south”. That was followed immediately by a message from the port war signal station: “Three warships coming in at great speed!” Those three warships were German cruisers: the Seydlitz, the Moltke and the Blücher. Between them they had twenty 11.2-inch guns, eight 8.2-inch guns, eighteen 5.9-inch guns and a whole host of other armaments.
	At precisely 8.10 am, the German cruisers opened fire on the Heugh battery. The first round of shells fell beside a low wall that formed the boundary between the battery and the pathway leading to the promenade. The wall, or at least its successor, is still there: I walked past it this morning. The blast from the shell killed Private Theophilus Jones, of the 18th Battalion the Durham Light Infantry. Private Jones was 27 and a teacher at a Leicestershire school, but he was originally from Ashgrove avenue in West Hartlepool. He was on sentry duty that morning. He was the first solder killed on British soil by enemy action in the first world war. Indeed, he was the first soldier to be killed on British soil in warfare since the battle of Culloden in 1746. Almost immediately afterwards, three other men from the 18th DLI—Privates Liddle, Clark and Turner—were also killed.
	Tactically, the German plan had been to concentrate the first phase of firepower on the batteries at the Heugh and the lighthouse, in order to put the battery guns out of action, then to switch to firing on industrial and infrastructure targets, such as West Hartlepool’s steelworks, docks, shipyards, gasworks and railway goods and passenger stations. However, the Heugh battery had erected a camouflage extension, giving its height a false impression. That, combined with a low tide, probably had tragic consequences: although the German cruisers
	failed in their objective of taking out the gun defence, it meant that if the German shells hit too low, hitting the rock of the headland, dangerous fragments of shrapnel ricocheted into the civilian population of old Hartlepool. Any shells that were fired too high sailed over the Heugh battery and into the densely populated area of West Hartlepool.
	Shrapnel from the second round of shells struck Hilda Horsley—Horsley is such a strong Hartlepool name and it is still shared by many of my constituents—who was a 17-year-old tailoress on her way to work. She was the first civilian fatality of the bombardment. Shrapnel also struck the end house of Cliff terrace, immediately to the rear of the Heugh battery. Two sisters, Annie and Florence Kay, were killed instantly.
	William street in old Hartlepool was one of the worst-affected areas, with eight fatalities, all of whom were children. The youngest was Selina Herbert, aged three, and the oldest was George Dixon, aged just 14. The Dixons lived at No. 30. At the start of the bombardment the family started to flee, hoping to seek refuge in the neighbouring countryside and the villages of Elwick and Hart. As they passed Church Close street, a shell exploded in front of them. Not only George but his eight-year-old sister Margaret Ellen and seven-year-old brother Albert were killed instantly.
	Their mother Margaret was blown off her feet by the scale of the blast, losing one of her legs in the process, but her maternal instinct overtook any thoughts for her own safety and she still clutched in her arms the blood-soaked baby of the family, John, who was not yet one. Margaret was losing consciousness, but told her surviving children, 12-year-old Joseph and three-year-old Billy, to run for safety. Joseph had 17 separate pieces of shrapnel in his leg and was bleeding profusely, but he took John in his arms and ran for his and his remaining brothers’ lives. He collapsed from blood loss and was found by soldiers, close to Trinity church. Although they lost three of their family, Margaret, Joseph, Billy and John all thankfully survived and recovered.
	Thirteen-year-old Bertie Young was at his home in Princes street, Middleton, with his face pressed to the glass window, watching the bombardment, when a stray piece of shrapnel hit the glass and killed him.
	Shells flew above the Heugh battery into West Hartlepool, across Hartlepool United’s football ground and the neighbouring allotments into the Furness, Cameron and Belk area—those streets and houses still stand to this day—and the streets named Turnbull, Dyke, Gas, Water and Crimdon. Belk and Turnbull streets were the most badly affected. Five deaths occurred in Belk street, including the youngest victim to die during the bombardment, seven-month-old Benjamin Lofthouse, of No. 25; 11-year-old Henry Bell, of No. 31 Belk street, also died.
	Henry’s brother was working at Gray’s shipyard and was still on shift when the bombardment started. He recalled:
	“In a few seconds a shell hit the offices and blew nearly all of it in the air. At the same time railway wagons were being blown sky high”.
	He started running down Middleton road. He goes on:
	“A few yards further on I saw Barney Hodgson of Water Street, pinned up against the Swedish church wall bleeding very badly. I went to run towards him but he shouted, ‘Keep on running son, I’m done for.’ I think he was a brave man.”
	I think the House would agree.
	In Turnbull street, nine deaths occurred, including three sets of brothers: Albert and Stanley Walker, aged nine and six, five-year-old William Peart and his two-year-old brother Charles, and Harold and Wilfred Cook, aged 10 and eight. It was the job of 12-year-old Alfred Claude, of 11 Gordon street, to walk each day to the dairy on Mulgrave road to get the family’s bread and milk. Alfred was killed on his way back from his errand when a shell exploded in Bright street.
	Against disproportionate odds, and with great bravery and accuracy, the gun teams at the Heugh battery managed to return fire against the German attack. A total of 1,150 shells were fired by the German cruisers, but the bravery and professionalism of the men at the Heugh meant significant damage was inflicted on the ships and the bombardment—originally meant to last an hour—was curtailed to 42 minutes. The shortening of the attack, thanks to the bravery of the gun men, probably prevented further death, injury and damage.
	Gunner Harry Tyson, of 17 Rowell street, was a member of the gun teams at the Heugh, and he recalled how something profoundly British took place—peace or war, there is nothing like a good, hot cup of tea—
	“our cooks, Billy Sanderson and Arthur Hall…must have been making tea all the time we were in action. As soon as we stopped firing out came buckets of hot tea.”
	In the space of 42 minutes, 119 people had been killed by the bombardment, including 37 children. Several deaths occurred in later weeks, bringing the total number of people killed as a result of the attack on our coast to 130, with over 500 people injured.
	Writing after the bombardment, an officer of the Green Howards commended the people of the Hartlepools, stating:
	“This account cannot be concluded without paying a tribute to the gallant behaviour of the civil population of the bombarded towns...Men, women and children following their daily tasks do not expect to be blown to pieces in the streets or to have the roofs of their houses come crashing in over their heads. Yet the inhabitants of the Hartlepools behaved like soldiers. There was no panic—no wild rush to safety. An hour after the firing ceased normal life was resumed just as if nothing had happened. This seems to show that these northern people still possess those sterling qualities which we associated with their ancestors, yet which many feared that modern luxury and modern comforts had sapped.”
	In updating Parliament on the war on 6 January 1915, Lord Kitchener, as Secretary of State for War, paid tribute in the other place to the people of my constituency, stating:
	“On our own coasts, on the morning of December 16, German battle-cruisers bombarded for half an hour Hartlepool, Scarborough, and Whitby. At Hartlepool a battery replied with some effect, though it was out-classed by the heavy guns of the cruisers. No military advantage was gained, or could possibly have been gained, by wanton attacks on undefended seaside resorts, which attacks had as their chief result fatal accidents to a certain number of civilians, among whom women and children figured pathetically. The people in the three towns bore themselves in this trying experience with perfect courage and coolness, and not the least trace of panic could be observed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 January 1915; Vol. 18, c. 235.]
	Unfortunately, most references to the bombardment of the Hartlepools in this House and the other place for most of the next decade or so were from right hon. and
	hon. Members pushing the Government of the day for compensation for those affected by the attack. It would not be until 1922, some eight years after the bombardment, that compensation was duly paid to the peoples of the Hartlepools.
	The effect on the people of my constituency following the bombardment was astonishing. In the weeks and months after the attack, 22,000 men from the Hartlepools signed up for the war effort, something like one in two of the towns’ adult male population. The Hartlepools received the award for raising the most money per head of the population for the war effort of any place in the British empire, a modern equivalent, in a town of 100,000 people, of £545 million.
	In 1914, the Hartlepools were a tough little town. Their people were plucky, patriotic and protective of their community. That was demonstrated exactly 100 years ago today in the bombardment and it was reiterated today by the people of the town in its commemoration. I and everybody in Hartlepool will never forget the sacrifices made by our ancestors—made by our own—in the Hartlepools during the bombardment of 16 December 1914.

Helen Grant: The raids by the imperial German navy on Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby 100 years ago today are justly remembered this evening for the devastating effect they had on normal people going about their daily business, so I begin by extending the sympathy and good wishes of the Government to the people of these northern seaside towns.
	The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) has recounted most passionately and sensitively the events of that day, and I will not do so again, but the 16 December bombardment was a terrible demonstration of what being in the line of enemy fire means for ordinary members of the public. The attacks on Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby resulted in 137 fatalities and 592 casualties and, of course, there was public outrage towards the German navy for an attack against civilians. Given all that, some might ask why the Government are not hosting a commemoration. It is true that we have chosen to focus on commemorating the key military milestones of the war for Britain and her then Empire, but that certainly does not mean that we are ignoring the dreadful things that happened much closer to home. We especially want young people to learn about the sacrifices of the 1914 to 1918 generation, some of them those plucky people from Hartlepool. We want people to be able to mark the centenary locally in ways that are meaningful to them. I would like to take the opportunity tonight to outline some of the events and activities that will commemorate the attacks on these very special seaside towns 100 years ago.
	The Heritage Lottery Fund, which has so far given out nearly £64 million to first world war projects large and small has earmarked a significant part of the pot for local projects that increase understanding of the effects of the war up and down the country. It is good to see that a grant of £9,900 has gone to Hartlepool Headland local history group for the “Hartlepool Bombardment—Then and Now” project, which will show photographs of the town in 1914 compared with
	today. We also welcome the activities of organisations such as the museum of Hartlepool, Scarborough art gallery, Scarborough maritime heritage centre and Whitby museum in marking the anniversaries.
	Hartlepool is the only official first world war battlefield site in the UK, in that the Heugh battery on the Headland is the only location in this country where our land forces engaged the enemy during the war, as Hartlepool tried to defend itself. Their brave stand is being honoured with a day of civic and community events organised by Hartlepool council in partnership with the Heugh gun battery trust. The highlight will be the unveiling of the new bombardment memorial near the Headland lighthouse by the Lord Lieutenant of County Durham.
	I am very pleased to see that Arts Council England has provided a £400,000 grant to enable the period to be commemorated on Teesside. Hartlepool will, of course, benefit from this, too. One of the town’s most iconic paintings—James Clark’s “Bombardment of the Hartlepools” has recently been restored, and it has to be said that the “Scarborough Remembers” programme has something for everyone. An extensive exhibition at Scarborough art gallery is being complemented by stunning new paintings being created by the Woodend creative in collaboration with a local artist. The Western Front Association and Scarborough Museums Trust are holding a day conference exploring important war-time
	themes, and the Scarborough archaeological and historical society and Scarborough library are hosting extensive talks.
	There has been a service of civil commemoration today at the exact time of the bombardment in an act of remembrance at Scarborough castle. In Whitby, the coastguard has laid lay a wreath in commemoration at the new Bombardment garden on the West cliff, and Whitby air cadets have organised an early evening candle-lit vigil followed by a music night at St. Hilda’s church. A 1914 exhibition is already on display at Whitby museum, which features the bombardment prominently.
	All these various commemorations, large and small, allow us to come together to honour the past. In doing so, we can find ways of working together to build a better society—both nationally and within localities. We therefore sincerely wish the people of Hartlepool, Scarborough and Whitby every success in their commemorative projects. May they be well attended and may they give rise to new friendships and co-operations so that these special towns continue to prosper for the next 100 years and beyond.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.